Star.
London, England, 1821-05-11 00:00:00

!Rouse to take any precipitate step, Which might leave
the idea of any vindictive feeling. The Honourable
• Member must forgive him, if he differed from the
I view which he took of the course the House ought
now to pursue. In.deed, he thought the House were
placed in a painful situation on this account. He had
stated that, because he did not think the House should
vindicate its own privileges by committal, that a pro-
secution was the best course-to pursue. He did not
mean to say that there never had been a prosecution
in cases of this nature; but he must say, that he, for
one, thought it a most improper course to take for
vindicating the privileges of the House, to send the
accused to trial loaded with a previous decision upon
their guilt—(Hear, hear).--It might have been per-
fectly competent for the Honourable Member, when
he called upon the House to notice the libel, then to
have proposed a direct prosecution. But he appre-
hended that there never was a case where the evidence
of the parties themselves had been examined and
sifted, so as to put the accusers in possession of that
which perhaps might be their case in defence, even
before the suit had been instituted—(Hear, hear).—
They would not be sending the accused before a tri-
bunal with a good deliverance, but shackled and tied
down by the proceedings. He really thought that
the wishes of the Honourable Member himself would
not be accomplished by the plan he proposed, and
that the House would be giving up its own power of
vindicating its rights and privileges. He moved, as
an Amendment, ~ That this debate be adjourned till
to- morrow."

Mr.SVYNNI said, that, unquestionably, if the House
considered time necessary to decide upon this question,
he should not object; but he was prepared to meet the
proposition of the lion. Member with a direct nega-
tive, without a moment's delay—(Hear.)—lt would
be unjust to the persons charged with the libel—it
would be unjust to themselves, and to the privileges
of the House. What was the nature of the question
before them? There was no doubt but that it was a
gross breach of their privileges, and one that could
not avoid punishment; but it was not a case for a
Jury, because it was impossible that a Jury could
know whether the paragraph alluding to the Honour-
able Member's speech was true or not. It was im-
possible that the House could suffer any person to go
before a Jury to swear as to the truth or falsehood of
the statement. It was not, in fact, a case that a
juror could take cognizance of. The course was
plain, and the House ought to proceed immediately
to commit.

Mr. G. BENNETT said, that certainly after what
had fallen from the Noble Lord, and upon further
Consideration, he was induced to consent to the post-
ponement. He certainly did hold strong feelings
upon the question, but they might be erroneous. He
declared his firm belief that the course he had recom-
mended, was the most lenient to the accused parties.
Mr. BROUGHAM was of opinion that leniency
should be left entirely out of the question. They
only ought to remember that the parties had a right
to justice, and that the House must have justice also.
In his opinion, if the House were to follow the re-
commendation of his Hon. Friend, its power to com-
mit for contempt and breach of privilege was com-
pletely at an end. if ever there was a case when im-
mediate committal was justified, it was this. The
article complained of was a complete obstruction to
the proceedings of the House, and standing upon
that ground, they ought not to hesitate in decreeing
the punishment. He agreed with the Noble Lord,
that if the Common law had been infringed by any
misrepresentatibn then a prosecution might be neces-
sary ; but in such a case, they ought to have stopped
the examination much sooner than at the stage to
which the present had been carried. He thought
also that the House would be doing an injustice to
itself, and abandoning its own privileges, if it did not
proceed in the usual course. With respect to the
person who had avowed himself the author, whether
he was so or not was another question, surely in his
case there could be no necessity for a moment's delay.

Sir FRANCIS BURDETT entirely coincided with
the views taken by the Noble Marquis, relative to the
injustice of sending individuals before a Jury with
the judgment of that House upon their backs. He
alio strongly objected to the prosecution, because he
differed as to the propriety of the House directing
the Attorney-General upon such matters. The At-
torney-General was not the servant of the House but
of the Crown ; and the proper way of proceeding,
if a prosecution were necessary, would be by an
Address to the Crown. As to the question of privi-
lege, he did not know that it could be a breach of
privilege unless it was a false report of what took
place in the House. Now, as no one complained of
the report, he could not see how it was a breach of
privilege. The remarks upon the conduct of a Mem-
ber, with regard to a discussion which took place in
that House, appeared to him to have no mote to do
with privilege than remarks upon any other part of
his conduct. If there was any breach of privilege at
all, it was on the part of the person who called upon
his Hon. Friend (if any such circumstances bad
passed, which he was aware had not) for an expla-
nation of what he had felt it his duty to say in his
place in that House. Because if every Member was
to be answerable for what he thought it necessary to
say of persons in office, to all their relations or friends,
there would be an end to free discussion ; because
Members could not act freely under such intimi-
dations or influences. He really thought that in this
case the saddle had not been placed on the right horse,
and if there was any breach of privilege it was in the
quarter to which he had alluded.
Mr. M. A. TAYLOR thought the House ought to
take notice of the gross prevarication of the witnesses,
and was in favour of the committal. He thought the
House possessed, and ought to protect the power of
vindicating itself whenever it was treated with indig-
nity or contempt.
Mr. BARING saw no reason for the House hesi-
tating in a case like the present. He thought it much
better that the Noble Lord should withdraw the
Amendment and that the House should dispose of
the person Who admitted himself responsible, and he
ing), for one, should feel no difficulty in
moving hi, commitment to Newgate.
Mr. WODEHOUSE was sorry the question had
been brought before the House. He thought real
character lost much of its weight by seeking the pro-
tection of that Ho .se against the attacks of such crea-
tui es of straw as these persons were described to be.
lie thought them was no provision in either of the