The Statesman.
London, England, 1821-05-11 00:00:00

„y~

are destroyed.
Do you know if the paragraph in question is de-
stroyed ?—1 believe it is.
In the office of the John Bull newspaper, are all the
paragraphs of this nature destroyed after they are
printed 2-1 know nothing of them after they are given
out of my hands.
To whom do you deliver them :—To the Printer.
What is his name ?—Blackie.
Were you here yesterday ?—Did you hear the exa-
mination of Mr. Weaver?---No.
Where were you when the warrant was served at
your house last night the city. I was at Corn-
hill at half-past eight, and went home afterwards.
Did Mr. Weaver communicate to you that he bad
appeared here ?—No.
Did any person communicate it to you ?—No person.
When did you know it ?--1 knew it yesterday.
At what time ?--In the afternoon.
Did you see Mr. Wearer yesterday after his exa-
L mination?—No.
Did you see him this morning ?---Certainly.

that if you
you would
osert the first part it,
Lida." Sic bowleg it to be

—it is a usual way to introduce a paragraph to say,
" tie are haired' to .say," w, " we are requested to
say."
Have you told Mr. Arrowswith or Mr. Shackell,
that you intended to avow yourself the author of this
paragraph ?—Yes.
When ?—To-Jay.
At what honr ?—I cannot tell exactly.
Hid they at the time of the publication inquire who
the author was ?—They spoke of it in conversation
generally.
By Lord NUGENT.—You have said that the latter
part of the paragraph was in your hand-writing. In
whose hand-writing was the foriner part ?—lt was an
extract from the Courier.
The whole of the remarks were in your hand-writ-
ing ?—Yes.
In whose hand-writing was the extract from the
Courier was in print.
Then you occassionally send to the press of the Jobs
Bull, printed copy from the Courier ?---Y4 s.
Ily Mr. MACDONALD.—Was any body prevent at
the time you toll Mr. Shackell and Mr. Arrowsmith
that you Wendel to avow yourself as the au hor
of the paragraph ?—Not any body.
Not Mr. Weaver ?---No.
When there is any dwelt as to the safety of insert-
ing a paragraph, to whom do you refer it?...-The ho'e
of the literary management of the paper is confided to

we.
Do you mean to say that you consult with nobody
on the propriety of inserting any paragraph that way
appear hazardous ?—With nobody.
Does Mr. Weaver continue to discharge the same
duties with respect to the paper, as he did previously
to the month of February?—Yes, he does.
By Lord NUtiENT.—Oid you ever see Mr. Weaver
at your own house -c—No.
bid you ever receive any note, letter, or other writ-
ten communication from Mr. Weaver, addressed to you
at your own houe ?—None.
Did you ever tell Mr. Weaver where you Eyed ?
Never.
By a MEMBEn.—nia Mr. Weaver know before his
examination yesterday, that you wrote the paragraph
in question P—l do not think he did.
When was it you first communicated with Mr Wea-
ver on the subject of the paragraph ?--Was it before
his examination here .:—I do not exactly recollect
when it was.
Isere the witness was ordered to withdraw, but not
to leave the !louse.
Mr. P,F.NNET said, they had now arrived at the
close of the examination into a subject, the necessity
for bringing which forward no one regretted more than
himself; although he had felt that be could not in
the discharge of that duty which every man owed to
his own character and in the discharge of his duty
to the House, abstain from doing so. The House had
now had before it, the Printer and Proprietot, and the
Etlitor of the Paper, the latter of whom had avowed
1.1111,4.1 f the author of the paragraph in question. He
would say nothing of the falsehood displayed, of the
perjury exhibited, of the shameful evidence given by
these mere creatures of straw—(Hear, bear,)---in the
disgraceful exhibition which the House had witnessed.
Nor would he say any thing of the character of the
paper with which they were connected. The objects
which he had had io view in this investigation were,
first, to clear his own character ; next, if possible
(although he hardly ventured to think that he should
succeed in that object) to extract from the wretches
who had appeared at the Bar who the persons were
who employed them, and who furnished the funds for
assailing the characters of others. In that last object
lie had failed. He could not say that he much regret-
ed this ; and, indeed, he would rather believe, if it
was ios,ihle to believe, that those wretches were the
authors of the libellous matter of that publication,
than that it proceeded from any other quarter. He
knew very well that by the rule and practice of the
(louse, in breaches of privileges of this or of a much
less serious nature, there was one course generally
adopted, namely, at once to commit the offenders to
Newgate. Since, however, be hail bad the honour of
I a seat in Parliament. lie had held and professed but
1 one opinion on the subject of those summary judg. I
meats. His heart, if not his judgment, told him that 1
there was only one course which he ought to pursue.,
namely, to give these people an opportunity .of rockingl
the best of their case before a jury of their country. I
He would therefore move, "'(shat the Attorney-tie-
neral be directed to prosecute Henry Fox Cooper,
William Shackell, Thomas Arrowsnah, and Robert
Shomas Weaver, for a false and scandalous libel on the
Honourable Grey Bennet, a Member of the House of
Commons, contained in a paper called John Dull, of
the date of Sunday, May t, which libel is as follows,
&c."
The Marquis of WNDONDERRY assured the Ho-
nourable Member opposite (Mr. Bennet) that no one
regretted more than he did the Breach of Privilege of
which he so justly complained. The llonnerable Mem..
ber was certainly placed in a situation of much deli-
.cacy and difficulty. Ile (the Marquis of Londonderry)
did not mean to say that there were not cases in which
such prosecutions were directed by the House, but
maintained that in this instance it was not the most
proper way of vindicating the character and privileges
of Parliament.---(Hear, hear !)—Were they to send
these persons beforea Jury loaded with the censure of
that august Assembly ? There was no instance in
which such a prosecution had been, directed by the
House after having proceeded so fit in the examina-
tion of the parties, and after those parties had disclosed
that which would be a part of their case before a Jury.
The Noble Lord, after expressing a hope that the Ho-
nourable Member would consider the nature of his air
tion, moved as an Amedment, 66 That the further de-
debate on this question should be adjourned to to-

morrow.
Mr. W. WYNN said, that it would be unquestiona-
bly necessary to adjourn this debate if the majority of
the House thought that the motion of his Honourable
Friend required further consideration. For himself
he was ready at once to meet the question. He thought
it woukl be not only unjust towards the parties accused
but derogatory to the privileges of Parliament, to send
the case to a Jury. The misrepresentation of proceed-
ings in the House was not a fact of which a Jury could
take cognizance. Under those circumstances, nothing

pevso
E ei
st osrd ofid alsalso this
tail Paper.
fu r
iit. wprthoyasritactaedi
john imosef
at once to proceed in this manner against the ought
itfhe thtoobeetrhne
would perhaps be matter of consideration whether theI
rions punishment.
Mr. H. BENNET observed, that
perhaps *Pwe this
question be heW opinions different from may lie,
nonrable Gentlemen ; he was most unwilling to
ratt2
forte against ththat sort e parties in question of pa.
nishment which be bad uniformly • opposed, when pre.
posed to be indicted on other persons. Indeed belied
proposed a prosecution by the Attorney-General as by
fur the most lenient course of proceeding.
Mr. BROUGHAM stated, that as wasthis •
a (mon
of more than ordinary importance, be should snake %
apology for offering a few observations upon it. I to,
House of Commons was not entitled to commit • in this
instance for breach of privilege, then no i t •• ns aneegmag
them that power could possibly occur. It
was impost'.
ble to think, that if the House intended to proceed
against the parties at common law, they ought not to
bare been much more abstinent in th •
that they ought not to have stopped f
tie examination;
sr short of the
course into which they bad been led. Th •
et, in the ex-
ercise of their high
persons to their
Bar, who, under the fear of instant punishment,
disclosed
matters which might be made evidence against theta is
a Court of Law. Ile was not prepared to say, that cases
might not arise which would justify such a proceediag,
but he coutended that the present was not one adieu.
lie was opposed to the motion of his Honourabk
Friend, and he would oppose the postponement of
the question, unless with a view to consider the nature
of the evidence given by the three other persons called
to the Bar.
' • Sir F. 111211.1/ETT observed, that the House bad Id.
don entered upon questions like the present, Maser
involving itself in a dilemma. He did not disk flat
the House should send the accused parties into &Coast
of Law, after having, in the exercise of a power which
it claimed as a privilege, extracted from them in as is.
quisitorial manner, statements which would make they
witnesses against themselves. This was to him as is•
superable objection to the mode of proceeding proposed
by the Hon. Member (Mr. Bennet.) lie had also as.
other objection, which was this, that he doubted the
power of the House to direct the Attorney-tieneral *
prosecute. The Attorney-General was not an officer
that House, he was not known to it in any other caps
city than that of a Member. If a prosecution was !ohs
instituted, it would be more proper to proceed by as
Address to the Crown, praying that the Attorney-line
ral be directed to prosecute. The House ought to cote
eider the difficulty in which they were placed. As fat
as he could perceive, there was no Privilege of Parlia•
ment attacked by this publication, unless it was a Breach
of Privilege to give a false report of a Member's speech.
But that was not the charge here. The thing comphin-
ed of was a ruin-representation of something which or
curred out of the House, and which bad nothings/do
with the Parliamentary conduct of the lion. Medals
whom it alluded. If there was any Breach of Privilege,
it was in that person who called upon the Hon. Meeks
to account fur what he was supposed to have said is Par-
liament. Ile (Sir F. Burdett) knew that the words is.
pitted had not beets uttered by the Hon. Member. Bat
surely it was a gross Breach of Privilege to account est
of the House fur any observi.Cons which, as a Mania
of Parliament, he felt it his duty to make upon any pm
sons holding official situations in the country. It rat
against this species of apprehension and intimidatim
that the House bad a right to call for protection. Is
former days, the protection of Parliament was called fa
against the intimidation of the Crown, but that onset
at an end. The llonourable Bart. concluded by es-
pressing a hope that the lion. Member would not prim
his motion.
Mr. M. A. TAYLOR thought the question of seas
rious a nature that the minutes ought to be printed.
Mr. BARING suggested to time Noble 31arqeen
(Londonderry) the propriety of withdrawiug his
amendment for the present, for the purpose of alley
ins the House to proceed nit!' respect to the perm
who called himself the Editor of the paper, as he, far
one, would have no hesitation in sending him to Noe
gate : it would then be for the house to consider bee
they would proceed with respect to the other parties
concerned.
Mr. M. A. TAYLOR explained.
Mr. WOHRHOUSE submitted to the lion. Member
(Mr. Bennet) with great respect, whether thereat cimv
ratter of the House did not suffer from Hon. Members
seeking protection against the attacks of such era.
tures, such men of straw as those who had bee°.
called to the Bar. Malevolence and misreprestetsiso°
were what they were all subject to, from the liar
tions they held in society. lie would call epos V'
tlemen to consider whether this pourer of privilege sis°
not looked upon in a ut,,st questionalml2 point of vie*.
by the people ? There was not any clause in ssY °I
time six Bills so often alluded to by gentlemen 05 til.e
other side, so objectionable in the eyes of the people
as the exercise of the privilege of Parliament.
Sir It. IVIIAON defended his lion. and lianost
Friend (Sir It. Ferguson) front the iuspostimer
thrown upon him by the paper in question, awl 0:
served, that the only object of the present inquiry ss
to drag from behind the shield of the Press the
der
tardly assassin who daily employed hii
self in att.sethels
ing the defenceless and powerless. lie supported
motion.
Sir T. LETHBRIDGE remarked, that the pubiicoti.
• e of
in question was a gross attack upon the pile, ,
he pesPit'
Parliament, and therefore upon the liberties of
was attack°
for whenever the privilege of Parliament .
1 his Part
the liberties of the people were endangered. - its
(John Ball) had been for some time dealit.
malignity in a manner disgraceful to the press
.
Ie
jurious to the morality of the tount .T.hu
an advocate for the liberty of time press, tll he
s ipport its licentiousness. Ile felt therefore
ever bad the boldness to stand up and expose
tiousness was entitled to the thanks of tbe I:
et concinded
country.—The Honourable. Baron
o_ .
serving, that the previsricat!on of three.
it 11
thew.
was sufficient ground to pro.•eed again, _
:aiwlelf to•
respect to the person who avowed

.11IFFL
tustmish
its!
Thig 9RP
skim &WI
to 41001."
owl Nil
• l'ke lti
vaisigtos
rre dia
pe," h
yr. PI
• Afta I
It
:PM
uesdo.
anew' lb
INTERP
Sir F
son ems
some of
tise Mu
ford.
Alm
F. Rot
was to
The
hirotieli
selsject
doe Po
re be
dip 111
The

LonJ
his prc
Keprea
terest
tion
attend,
ouch I
would
which
then
theref
in sub
the to
was
ensui I
cone

Rep
cfacl
newt
appe►
to 2t
atuti4
coon
greal
that
land
olnd
do
Si
HOS'
appe

jorit

-T
pros
Si
16'1

_
Aftp--441Mift - 't i
heal Shown the pars- WI the strongest grounds could prevent the House
not have 4ssalled-it from departing from its usual practice, which was coat.
t part of it, 44 We are mitroent, and in this way he thought, that they ougLi

•1441.• •• _
that the weds ler
on. Member. hot the
ea
lege to account
Ne
rhich, as a Moshe
thismake upon any pm
le country. It use
Ise
in and intimidatim
for protection. Is the
ament was called for
fru
wn, but that was sir
t. concluded by ev
über would not pros
lie question of sow. th
glut to be printed.
he Noble Marques
f withdrawiuf hie
purpnge of allole•
A
=peel to the per"
the paper. as he, fur 1m
tending him to Nev.
time to consider how
.0 the other parties
1
'd.
l to the lion. Member 1
whether the real eke
r from lion. Member
ttacks of such ewe.
lose who had bees •
and rnisrepresestatio
to, from the
would call WI tell"
power of privilege Ist
ionalil2 point of vie!
any clause in soy of
by gentlemen oa die
he eyes of the people
31 P.trliament•
is lion. and 6allset
rout the impurities'c'
in question, and
he present inquiry ear
of tllO Press the der
ayed himself in attack-
.ss. lie supported the
ced, that the pubiicatios
upon the privilege of
he liberties of the people.
Parliament was attacked
nolaugeretl. 'lbis Par
le time dealing forth in
41 to the press and i
wi
ntry. Ile was aboye
e prep, but he would aft
felt therefore that Orr
ip and expose that lifer
inks of the Iluuse ari the
aronet concluded by
of three of the wits`
es
eel against th.
lowlelf theme &WWl'