Star.
London, England, 1821-03-10 00:00:00

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.

Mr.STUART WORTLEY rose to call the atten-
tion of the House to a breach of privilege of the
grossest nature imaginable—(Hear, hear).—They all
knew that by some means or other the debates of that
House were published; and they might be informed,
that by some unexplained mode—by stealth—the
Lists of Majorities and Minorities upon various mo-
tions were published also—(ticar, hear).—When he,
said this, he begged to add, that he was one of those
who were for the debates of that House being so pub-
lished, and even for the lists of votes going forth to
the world from time to time. For his own part, he
never gave a vote is Parliament that he was not
ready to acknowledge anywhere-else, or of which he
was averse to meet the publication—(Cheers).—But
While this sort of connivance was thus allowed, it
behoved the House to take great care that its per-
mission was not abused; and he thought they should
also take care that there should be no Lists made
out, flatly stating on the face of them the foulest
falsehoods—(Cries of Hear, hear)—declaring that the
House of Commons had voted on motions which had
never been submitted to them, and given false co-
lours to the proceedings altogether. He would now
read the libel, which was contained in the Morning
Chronicle, of February 26th : it was in these words—
" List of the minority of 37, who voted, on Friday
la,t, the 23d, for hearing the Petition of Thomas
Davison read before it was rejected ; and against
Lord Castlereagh's admonition to the People of Eng-
land, not to trouble and take up tlut time of the
House of Commons any more with their Petitions."
(Loud cheers from the Opposition).—He (Mr. Stuart
'Wortley) confessed that he was surprised to hear those
cheers—(Cheers).—He could scarcely tonceive that
he was then sitting in the House of Commons—(B
laugh)—that lie was standing, at least, in the House
of Commons. Did he understand from those Hon.
Members opposite, that they meant to affirm this
statement ?—(Checring from the Opposition).—Why
then, under these circumstances, he thought the next
thing to be done was to refer to the Journals of the
House ; for they must have it stated there what the
vote really was. He maintained that that title to the
List, in point of fact, referred to what had passed
during the debate. He did say, that there never
was, and he hc.ped that there never would be made,
in Parliament, a proposition such as had been said
to have fallen from a Noble Lord; nor did he be.
lieve that there was any man in the country who
would have the boldness to get up in his place in
that House, and utter any such thing. This List,
thus headed, he considered to be a libel on the House
of Commons; and it was a false libel to say that
there was any proposition made, or that any part of
the House voted for a proposition to reject Petitions
before they were read. The List was a List of the
Minority if there was a minority, he took it for
• granted there must have been a majority also, con-
nected with the same question. Now, who were
those who composed that majority ? He challenged
the Honourable Gentlemen opposite to produce a
single vote of this sort upon his (Mr. Wortley's) side
'of the House. It was no trifling matter that libels
were not only allowed to be published; but when a
libel of this gross nature was brought before the
House of Commons, there were Honomeable Mem- ..
bers .who, cheered—( Cheers)—they cheered it-4,Loud
cfseets).—:“ Sir, (continued the Hon. Gentleman)—
they cheer!—(Loyder cheert):—it is to be cheered,
iiiwas(Contismcd cheeriv)...HOSourable Members

may cheer."—(scessive cheering).--.lt Mr. Spqakart
under these circualstances I appeal to you."
The SPEAKER-" Order, order."
Mr. S. WORTIIY--44 So long as I am a Member
of this House, I have a right to vote."—( Vehement
cheering).
The SPEAKER—e 4 Order, order."

Mr. S. WORTLEY-" I can assure the Hon. Gen-
tlemen, that they will not deter me."—(Hear, hear).
He apprehended that his own conduct was perfectly
constitutional; he had as great a veneration for the
Constitution of the country as any other Hon. Mem-
ber ; and in that spirit, he said that the libel became
of tenfold consequence, when, having read it to them,
Honourable Members cheered, as if they meant to
assert that that was true which he defied them to
prove. If there had been any vote of this sort, there
were the Journals of the House of Commons to refer
to; and they could prove •whether such a vote had
ever been concurred in. No parties had a right to
charge any Members of the House of Commons, sup-
posing it to be true even, that the Noble Lord had
used those expressions which had been attributed to
him, with having adopted those expressions, because
they might have voted on the same side with the
Noble Lord. Was it come to this, that everybody
who voted on a question was to be taken as adopt-
ing all the observations which had occurred in the
course of the discussion ?—(Hear, hear, hear).—
If this doctrine was to be affirmed, there was an end
to all freedom of debate. He should not have taken
so much notice of this libel if he had not seen ano-
ther publication giving a notice of a late minority ;
which notice was undoubtedly not so bad as this, but
which was still very unfair, as to the vote come to
by the House upon the occasion to which it referred ;
and that was the other night upon a motion that was
brought forward by an Honourable Member for the
reduction of taxes—(//ear-but of this it was not
his intention to complain. It did so happen that on
neither of these cases was he himself present : he was
not in the House either time; but he did now call
upon the House of Commons, more particularly after
what had occurred since he had taken his place, to
assert their privileges, if they meant to preserve an •
freedom of debate—(Hear, hear). He should, upon
these grounde) move in the first place that the libel
be read by the Clerk.
The Clerk read it accordingly.
The Honourable Gentleman then moved, " That
J. Lantbert, the Printer and Publisher of The Morn-
law Chronicle, be called to the Bar of the House on
Monday next."
No Member rising to second the motion,
The SPEAKER. twice inquired'who seconded it?
After a short interval,
Mi. Serjeant ONSLOW rose to second the motion.
Mr. G. N N Err said, he was not in the House
on the evening whel the division took place, and
tneretnre was not able to affirm or contradict the
state.,.ent in the paper on the table. He wished,
however, to express his satisfaction, that the Hon.
Member had plucked up courage enough to stand
forward, and bring this complaint before the House
himself ; for the last time they had beard anything
reflecting on the House of Commons, which was
brought before it by way of complaint, the Honour.
able Gentleman had left this duty to another person
—(Hear, hear).—From all that he (Mr. Bennett) had
heard, he believed every syllable contained in this
heading to be true—(" Not one toord,"front the Trea-
sury Bench).—He did not mean to say this, as applied
to the vote, as if it had been so agreed to in terms,
but as applied to its substance--(Hear, hear).--of,
this there could be, he thought, no manner of doubt.
With regard to the complaints of the Hon. Gentle-
man, he had not said that jot was not content with
the publication of these lists of divisions. If he had,
he Mould have taken a very singular step ; for, since
he (Mr. Bennett) had first heard of this discreet in-
tention of the Right lion. Gentleman, lie had looked
over the public Journals, and had been at some pains
t. ascertain how long the practice had prevailed.—
In the year 1703, he met with the publication of a
division in the House of Commons, which account
he believed to be the earliest of this nature. (The
lion. Gentleman here enumerated a variety of others.
Among them were divisions upon the expulsion of
Stevens, a Member, i.s 1711; on the Excise Law, in
the House of Lords, &c. down to the year 1742.)—
From the year 1712 to the present period, there was
no end of those public lists ; many of them with titles,
and many of them without; and this was the first in•
stance, lie believed, in which a complaint bad been
made of them, particularly where very doubtful
words were a part of the question. The Hon. Gen-
tleman bad warmed himself into very great choler
on this subject, when he found that there was not
upon that (the Opposition) side of the House the same
sensibility that he (Mr. Wortley) seemed to feel—
(Laughter)--but, on the contrary, that of those Ho-
nourable Members, they who had been present at
the discussion considered that the substance of the
beading of the list in question was true—(Cheers).—
Now he (Mr. G. Bennett) having nothing at all to do
with the publication of these lists, and knowing
nothing at all about the matter or manner of their
publication, did consider himself entitled to say that
the substance was correct ; and whether it suited Ho-
nourable Gentlemen to avow their conduct or not,
when it was sent forth to the Public—whether or no
it suited them to avow what they were not ashamed
to do in that House—(Hear)—was another question.
He was not, however, at all surprised to perceive,
that when Hon. Gentlemen found that it was so to go
forth to their constituents, they should feel ashamed
that it was to be published—(Hear, hear).—The Ho-
nourable Gentleman (Mr. Wortley) was, indeed, very
discreetly put forward on this occasion, because he
had not been present at the transaction. Now he
(Mr. Bennett)—for one really did not exactly know
how he was to meet this question brought forward
by the Hon. Gentleman—he knew of no other way
than moving " that the House do now adjourn" (Hear).
Mr. C. LONG professed to be ignorant of the rea-
son of the application of the-words, "plucking up
courage," to his Hon. Friend, than whom no man
more fearlessly or zealously performed his duties.
And when the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bennett) charged
'his Hon. Friend with unbecoming warmth, he would
' ask, did such a charge come well from that Hon.
Member? Though the Hon. Gentleman had per-
formed good services to the Public, yet, for an im-
partial and dispassionate inquiry, he (Mr. Bennett)
was not the man whom he would particularly *elect.
The complaint here was not against the publication

of the names of a Majority or MiOrity, hut that a
question was stated to have been advocated by one
side, and opposed by another, iwhich never came be-
fore the House. His Noble Friend never said that
the Petitions of the People ought us be shut out, and;
that they should be admonished wit to trouble the
House with Petitions. He had said, that the matter
of a Petition, as well as the terms of it, was a fit
subject for the consideration of the House; and this
explanation was so often repeated, that it was a mat-
ter of surprise how it could be misunderstood.
Sir ROBERT WILSON, not having been present
at the discussion' alluded to, of course found it ills-
possible to affirm or deny the truth of what was
stated in this paper ; yet he could not but congratu-
late the Country on the good sense, the discretion,
and the sensibility which were manifested by the Ho-
nourablo Gentlemen opposite—(Hear, hear). He
did take it as a good omen that Gentlemen on that
side of the House would be more cautious in future
how they supported particolar measures by their
votes. But he begged to ask, what had been the
conduct observed when one of the grossest libels that
ever was published was brought under the notice of
that House? Not only had that libel been written
by the Moderator and Presbytery of Langholm, but it
had been officially printed in the King's Gazelle—
(Hear, hear). He did trust that Government, in this
case, would, as they were powerful—not like them
(the Opposition)—(.4 laugh)—imitate the conduct of
Opposition on that occasion ; and, as they could bet-
ter afford to shew it, extend their indulgence to this
party—(Hear). Ile certainly could not justify the
article in question ; but- though it might be thought
irregular, he did hope the Honourable Gentleman
(Mr. Wortley) would consent to withdraw his motion.
Mr. CREEVEY hoped the Honourable Gentle- ,
man would forgive him for saying that, of the many
instances of indiscretion which he bad witnessed in
that House, this was the most extraordinary and pe-
culiar one. As lie understood the motion, the ob-
jection taken to the Printer of the Chronicle was two-
fold. He had said, that this was a list of a mino-
rity who voted for hearing the Petition of an indivi-
dual before it was rejected; and then he described it
as a minority ,4 against a Noble Lord's admonition
to the People of England not to trouble and take up
the time of the House with their Petitions." Now,
the first part of this was true, because he (Mr. Cree-
vey) himself voted for the Petition being read before
it was rejected. With respect to the second part of
the objection, he certainly, so far as the impression
on his own mind went, did hear the Noble Lord say
upon the occasion alluded to, that he admonished the
People of England not to trouble the House of Com-
mons with their Petitions--(Hear, hear). Various
explanations Were given. He could not, for his own
part, suppose that the Noble Lord ever meant to'
broach such a proposition—(Hear, hear). Now, the
Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Wortley) complained
also, that he was not to be taken in, and along with
tl e Noble Lord, because he mi,3lit hap,,en to vote
with hint—(Hear)—that he was not to be implicated
in whatever might have been aivanced in the course
of a discussion. Su long, therefore, as such a senti-
ment was indulged; expressions like those of the No-
ble Lord were a very proper indiscretion to be ani-
madverted upon. If the Printer of the Morning
Chronicle had noticed the minority in this way, one
indiscretion was coupled with another, and he hoped
the Hon. Gentleman would withdraw his motion.

Mr. WALLACE said, the question was simply
this—whether, in animadverting on the Noble Lord's
indiscretion, if the Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Cree-
, vey) would have it to be such, this Printer was justi-
fied in casting a most gross and unfounded imputa-
tion, not only on the character of the Noble -Lord,
but on that of the House of Commons also ?—With
respect to what had been said of the Address from
Langholm, he should observe, that on that occasion
no Member rose to justify it, but the material differ-
ence between that and the subject at present before
the House was this—whether the Hon. Member
was not called upon to press this matter when the li-
bel was affirmed by Gentlemen opposite?
Sir JOHN NEWPORT had heard the words used
by the Noble Lord (Castlereagh), on the evening al-
luded to, and certainly, until the Noble Lord quali-
fied the words, they were of a nature to create the
impression to which the paragraph complained of al-
luded. The Noble Lord had, however, qualified his
meaning, within bounds which would not justify the
allusion. It had been said, that no Member had
risen on a former occasion to justify the Address from
Langholm; true, but let it be recollected that the
publitation of that Address was the deliberate act of
the Secretary of State for the Home Department be-
fore it was mentioned in the flouse—( Hear, hear).,--
Most certainly the House had pronounced an opinion
upon the libel; and but for that he would have taken
the sense of the House upon it, in consequence of the
manner in which it had been published. The Noble
Lord (Castlereagh) had used words with respect to
the presentation of Petitions, which at first struck
him as bearing the construction put upon them, but
the Noble Lord had afterwards qualified them. As
well as he (Sir John Newport) could recollect the
words of the Noble Lord, they were these : " I would
really request Gentlemen to admonish those who
bring them Petitions not to burthen the House with
them in the manner they do."—These were, as well
as he recollected, the words of the Noble Lord ; but
he had afterwards qualified them. The discussion on
that occasion was, whether a Petition should be re-
ceived,'complaining of the conduct of a Judge in a
Court of Justice; and certainly, if Petitions respect-
fully worded, and complaining of a Court ofJustice,
were handed to him, he should think it quite within
the province of his duty to present them to that
House, because he felt that there were many cases of
complaints against Courts of Justice, in which, if the
House did not interfere, the party complaining would
be without redress. On the whole, though he could
not sanction the assertion of the paragraph, yet he
trusted that the motion of the Honourable Gentleman
would not be pressed.
Mr. HUSKISSON approved of the suggestion,
that it would be expedient not to prosecute this com-
plaint any further. His only difficulty in acceding
to it was, that he apprehended that the sentiments of
some Members with respect to this misrepresentation
might be considered as the feelings of the House.—
The House ought not to be indifferent to the pre-
sumption which would ascribe motives to its Mem-
bers for the vote they might choose to give. Much
as he confided is the candour of the Member for

V

uAn"llimebiteyd(Mporw. eCrreevof eatibUttiwngtilt.ole63acflAletil
Motives upon which he voted.
Mr. S. WORTLEY was sure that the ei •
which the House had of his character scold 76
it unnecessary for him to enter into its defenteren
moment ; yet to thellonourablel%lember whorl:tutha,t,
it pertinent to say-of him (Mr. Wortley) that
plucked up courage for this occasion, he shonldle l
ora.—v
say, that he could do his duty there and eystme_---1
quite as well as that Hon. Gentlemass—mteers7
He was taunted with indiscretion, but was it
to defend that which was absolutely fabe?
the imputation that he had been put forward„„.,"
this occasion, he repelled it ; he never was, be .791
would be put forward as the instrument of am.',„„,
sons. The Honourable Gentleman suppursercio
party in the House ; he (Mr. Wortley) support
other. He gave the Honourable Gentleman the rAL
of sincerity, and expected only the same justicec'T
himself. He might be mistaken in his course, ha:
would not be put down by the exclansatiuu,L.Z.
was put forward upon this occasion. He Wald
peat, he never was, and never would be, the
to be put forward for the convenience of any per—iii`
Sir M. W. RIDLEY rose to order.
Mr. S. WORTLEY insisted on being allossedi
explain his motives, when he -was charged aid";
much warmth by the Hon. Member for Sliresu
(Mr. Bennett). He was sorry to bring the piQ
to the bar, for he thought there were Gentlentesi
that House whose justification of the printer
wa
worse than the libel itself—( Hear, hear).—whes;
heard Gentlemen on the other side stand up
u•
defend the writer of the paragraph in quest*
thought the matter ought not to be let•pass witui
censure—(Hear, hear).—For his part he had no*
jection to withdraw his motion, if these G.„.,
wo
it
wdu
al
heds
written
Hrnnio understand
rso sra
motion,o
mtyi
aonthidlfheaotesrht paragrapheeuo,m.
opootrosfcitrynootniuoalakien.•
such
yc innocentmha t
ninab eat
mlhdt,eomfi
presssV t°l
wa
not a libel which pointed out certain Members d
that House as voting upon a proposition width us
I never made in that !louse? (Hear,,from the M.
serial benches ). Under such circumstances the Hens
would be wanting to a sense of its own dignity, di'
did not bring the printer to the bar, and at Jena
monish him. With regard to the substance.' is
libel it mattered not ; whether the Noble Lord
the words or not, that was not the question—theeed
question was, whether there was such a motion
en the House as the paragraph assorted cotainHern.
hers voted upon—(Hear, bear).—lf there was se
such a motion, then was the paragraph most
and the House of Commons should not allow ate
pass unnoticed. And what was the falsecharge thus
laid at the door of the House of'Commons? Why,
nothing less than that the majority supported the
admonition to the People to give over petitiudrg
that House—thus charging them with assenting to
the extinction of the dearest privilege of the Brisk
Constitution—(Hear, hear).—Howerer, if the Hon.
Member for Shrewsbury, or those Gentlemen who
cheered him (Nlr.Wortley) when he rose,-would now
but say that the author of the paragraph had coca
mined an indiscretion, he would be satisfied; all hi
ends would be answered ; for his only wish was, that
by a well-timed admonition iu,this-case, the recur.
ranee of these things pidght .be guardedagainst for
the future—(Hear, bear).
Lord CASTLEREAGH said, the paragraph had
been pointed out to biro, and it was said he ought to
complain of it to the Houk, as it was, perhaps, a
false, detestable, and wicked a libel as ever appeared
—(A lauob, from the Opposition)—on the Home of
Commons. He thought, however, that as a Maim
of the Crown, the task of complaining to the Hums
would look rather invidious; and besides, itocoured
to him, that the extreme absurdity and contemptible
character of the paragraph, would render it inooziose
even in the meanest capacity. Now that the matte
was brought before the House, he would not hesitate
to say, that the House should not let it pass without
some mark of reprobation. But could anything be
more absurd—would any reasonable man believe
that he (Lord Castlereagh), standing up in his place, .
would speak against, or' impose restrictions as the
right of petitioning? Why, what was the fact? Oa
the very night in question no less than a dozen Peti-
tions were presented to the House; and he did say,'
certainly, what he would now repeat, that it was Wt
.
an act of kindness towards the Petitioners, to 10
them, how useless it was to be bringing up Petithes
to that House on subjects in which they' should be
aware that the House could give them no rell6-
But how far was this from the ridiculous insinuation
thrown out, that he had said this House ought to be
no longer troubled with Petitions, that he wished
petitioning were at an end. The thing, to any br
man, was in itself so palpable, that he thought"'
paragraph below contempt—though he now aped
that it was fit to punish even those who would me
lead the ignorant by such absurd and wicked ter
sentations. Having said thus much, he hardly
that he was called upon to give a more explicit dell
of having used the words with the intention mew
to him. What he said on the occasion of the Pa"
against Mr. Justice Best was, that if the Fedi!!
complained of any unjust or oppressive law, O
the conduct of the Juge was corrupt, the
could properly interfere; but he doubted much, we"
no such complaint was made, and when the dal"!
was only as to-a point of law, whether the HettseLl.
called upon, there being another and a more Pr
place where the question could be set at rest-(7!
hear). He also regretted that so many Petitiova.mr`
presented of such a character as made it inc
with the functions of the House to extend to thee!,
prayed-for relief. This House was not a Cast___"
Appeal in all matters, and still less in matters !of
nected with the technical administration of
—(Hear, hear).—These were the expressions berg
as applied to that particular case ; but no man,
rTght
warmer advocate than himself for the genet"
of petitioning—(Hear, hear).)
discreet,Lo rd
Al; hAeNdi
HAIL
call for the serious attention of the House.
wished to know what difference there was _
tt
saying certain Members had voted aealnmbsi
tlti
whole speech of the Noble Lord, and that they
Mr.
sr.Cob
C.
ille LordUTC iin
lNroOtNcotohsoiudgerhtitthaes poufbalictatioa!
voted against a part of it.—(Hear.)
did notgwhichli mean to
din
ia ;
to the 004

?tc

I
he
the
Lo
Hu

ing
par

tagbih

via
SUM

G
both

'Ter;
mo i

rib;]
teiv

his ii

tjon
tom

ber,
rect
'Out
dui
atid

WO MO be allowed to say, he had misaken the
liable Lord's meaning at the time; and had ender-
,oom as reading a lecture to the People of Eng-
i dto refrain from petitioning in future.
Hr, MONCK said, that as the Mover (Mr. S.
Watley) on this occasion, had discovered the unfor..
twee paragraph in question to be " false,' and
;sber had discovered it was " false, detestable, and
wed," he should not be surprised if the Attorney-
coral was to find out that it was also 46 blasphe-
-000 and seditious"—( Hear ).,--Now with regard to
the pararrapb, acid the reflection it was said to con-
athe if Gentlemen would read it they
vel
wow see that all the reflection was cast upon Lord
cssosseegh, and that the Hou* escaped free. He
tsesidered the whole as a political squib, and as such
bought to be passed over.
Lord CASTLEREAGH did not know whether
the Honourable Member was here as Counsel for the
se,—(Spoke, spoke!)—The paragraph was par-
ticularly levelled at him, and he hoped in courtesy
to pled indulgence. If the Hon. Member intended
o,aefend the paragraph, he should, against his in-
rgnation, be forced to support the motion which had
been brought forward against the Printer.
Mr. CLRWEN hoped the Motion would be with-
irawn. He had left the House the other night with
efie same impression of the meaning of the Noble
Lord as did the Honourable Member for Cork (Mr.
Hutchinson).
Ur. S. WORTLEY had no objection to withdraw-
ing the motion, if Gentlemen ceased to defend the
paragraph; but he on his conscience believed the pa-
rlgniph affected even the safety of the House, and ,
whilst he saw any party or set of men in the House
inclined to defendthe paragraph, he would divide the
House, even though lie should go out alone.
Mr. J. P. GRANT said, no Member could defend
theparagraPh in question, in the view the Honour-
able Member seemed to intimate. Ile considered
the paragraph as most indiscreet, and, as such, con-
demned tt. He trusted, however, the Honourable
Member would withdraw his motion.

Mr. HOBUOUSE did not know but lie might be
regarded as a bad Counsellor for Mr. Lambert, but
differed from every Ment6er who had spoken on
the subject. It appeared to' him that the proper'
gime of defence had not been taken by any of those
the had preceded him. He was of opinion that that,
Horse had not the power to commit, in a case like
;be present—( Cries of Order, order).
The SPEAKER said, that no doubt could exist
ithe power of the House to inquire into a gross'
Watch of privilege.
Mr. HOBHOtiFSE said, he must bow to the autlao-.
rity* of the Chair ; but he must observe, that the Ho-
;mumble Member for Yorkshire must not attempt to
make a condition the ground of withdrawing his mo-
tion; for he coold not consent to say he considered
this paragraph as improper. The Honaurable'Mover
aid, be knew of nothing so calculated to injure
the House as such publications as this ; he would tell
the House what was much more mischievous—
nmely, such motions as the present. The Noble
Lord, last Session, had given what he (Mr. lob-
bone) considered a most discreet opinion on the sub-
ject of the Western Luminary. The Noble Lord said
if they began to notice these things, it would be im-
possible to say where they would end ; so he would
say now; for was there a day in which libels were not
published reflecting on Gentlemen sitting on his side.
tithe House? for himself in particular, was there a
day in whiab he was not represented as a person de-
loth of overturning the Constitution? The Honour..
able Gentleman's friends might be obliged to him for
his defence of them, especially when it was recol-
ked, that on one occasion he had voted them inca-
pable; but of that he did not complain, as some new
lights might have broken in upon him since.
Mr. S.WORTLEY declared, that consistent with
his notion of duty he could not withdraw his motion.
Mr. BARING opposed the motion.
Mr. BATHURST thought the motion could not be
withdrawn unconditionally; there must be some cen-
ser' expressed upon it.
Colonel DAVIES spoke in favour of withdrawing
ktk motions.

Mr. H. G. BENNETT said he had no objection
to withdrawing his motion, if the Hen. Member op-
posite would do the same by his.
Mr. BAREAM complained that the motives of
Gentlemen on his side of the House were misunder-
stood. They never affected to defend the doctrine
that a printer was justified in slurring a majority or
minority of that House ; but this did not appear to
them to be a case of that nature.
Mr. C. BATHURST denied that there could be
ony.mistake, unless a wilful one, on the printer's part;
for unless the question had been upon the Noble
Lord's admonition, could the minority vote against
it ?—(Hear, hear).—lf the lion. Member for York-
shire was correct in his view, he (Mr. Bathurst) did
not see how he could give the motion up. He
thought, however, with the explanation that no
offence was intended against the House, the motion
might be totally withdrawn.
Sir R. FERGUSON said, thatjt was under an im-
pression that the Noble Lord had used the words,
that he rose with some warmth to call for an expla-
nation at the time. The explanation of this night,
by the Noble Lord was, however, entirely satisfac-
tory. He wished the Hon. Member for Yorkshire
to withdraw his motion, for no man was more jealous
of the privileges of the House, and yet he (Sir R.
Terguson) saw no libel in the paragraph. There was
to Member at that side who would countenance a
libel on the House; but, in fact, they did not con-
ceive this to have been a libel.
Lord CASTLEREAGH said, in explanation, that
his complaint was not against the number of Peti-
tions coming there, but that the Petitioners preferred
tomplaints on subjects of which the House, in the
discharge of its important functions, could not take
cognizance—( Hear, hear).
Mr. S. WORTLEY asked, was he to understand
that the Hon. Member for Shrewsbory (Mr. Bennett)
would avow the paragraph to be a libel—("No! no!'
1'..°"1 the Oppositku).,— Then he would kress it to ai
evasion.
!Jr. DENMAN would venture to ask any Mem-
kr, supposing that the Honourable Mover was cork
tea in the view which he took of the question of pri-
/liege• whether he was justified in persisting in his
11.1ution, merely upon the ground that some indivi-
duals differed with Isim in opinion upon the subjecta.
could not conscientiously admit hit interpretation,

to In their atm—(Hear, Near.)--He h6iieci that
the motion and the amendment would both be with-
drawn.- He, howeter, was not sorry that this ques-
tion had been '
agitated, because he looked upon it as
one illustration of the mischief which must iuevitably
result from rejecting the Petitions of aggrieved per-
sons without reading them.—(Hear, Hear.)
' The House then divided on the question of ad-
journment, when the numbers were—
For adjourning - -
Against it

- 34
- 155

Majority against the Amendment - —l2l
' Some discussion now took place with closed doors.
Upon thp return of strangers to the Gallery, Mr:
LAUISTOW was as his legs, moving the previous
question; on the original motion.
Mr. BENNETT entreated the Honourable Mem-
-1
ber for Yorkshire to withdraw his motion, as it occu-
pied the time of the House whilst so much pressing
business was coming on.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY would not consent to
withdraw his motion, unless on the conditions he
had stated. He understood these were not to be ac-
ceded to—(" No, no,"from the Opposition).
Lord CASTLEREAGH conceived the only ques-
tion was, whether the offence complained of was a
breach of privilege which ought to be followed up
by calling the Printer of the Morning Chronicle to
the Bar of the House? For his own part, he thought
it a subject that might be very easily accommo-
dated—(Hear, hear). As there appeared no disposi-
tion on the part of the House to press a measure of
punishment, he hoped the Honourable Gentleman
would withdraw his motion—(Cries of " Hear,"
and 44 No, no"),
Lord A. HAMILTON contended that, previous
to calling a printer to the Bar of that House, it had
been uniformly the practice to establish some ground
for such a measure. If the printer should be brought
to the Bar on Nlonday, he (Lord A. Hamilton) would
ask foi what had he been brought there? The pro-
position had been made by the Honourable Gentle-
man who sat nest the Noble Lord, solely because the
printer had provoked that Honourable Gentleman's
displeasure. He trusted he was not giving an unne-
cessary opinion. Could the Noble Lord say whether
it was on the ground, as it now stands, the 'printer
ought to be called to the Bar, or because his (Lord
A. Hamilton's) friends at that side of the House
would not recant their opinions?—(Cheers). If the
Honourable Gentleman had conducted himself as
is usual in such cases, he ought to have stated the
act of criminality, and called for the decision of the
House upon that question. The Honourable Gentle-
man ought not to have committed the House to a
measure so obnoxious—(Hear, hear). He trusted the
Noble Lord and his friends would negative the ques-
tion, on the ground that no necessity for The motion
had been stated, and then would come the question
whether the Printer" had been guilty of a breach of
privilege or not? He contended that no case had
been made out which required that the Printer should
be called to the Bar.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY insisted that the usual.
mode was to read the paper containing the alleged
breach of privilege, after which the supposed offender
was called to the Bar of the House, before the ques-
tion, whether the matter was or was not a breach of
privilege, kad been decided.
The SPEAKER declared the Honourable f.searis-j
man who spoke last was perfectly correct in bh
planation of the usages of the House.
Dr. LUSHINGTON trusted the Honourable Gen-
tleman (Mr. S. Wortley) had gained his object, and
hoped he would, therefore, withdraw his motion.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY, after a few words,
declared his readiness to comply with the with of
the House. He hoped that, in the warmth with-
which he had spoken during the discussion, no lan-
guage had fallen from him which had given offence
to any Honourable Gentleman.
Mr. LAUBTON then withdrew his amendment, and
the House proceeded on other business.