The Statesman.
London, England, 1813-06-26 00:00:00

scone, he was told by Justice
being a bona fide representatioo
in that House, and the judos

nothing to do with the question.
must cut off all correspoydence.between
sentative and his Constituents. This too,
when reports were permitted by ,
House, so that, by the Judges' law,
left at the mercy of Reporters, unless
throw themselves on the mercy of the -
much from the reason of the case (;
son was said to be law), he should
impossible that a Member should -
give a bona fide account of his conduct
stituents; and if the accounts were not a bona fsde
one, it was to the House alone, he contended, that
he should be obliged to answer. Now, as to what
Was the practice of Parliament on this ? The first
cases which occurred were during the Loos Parlia-
ment, when the House was debating ',Atli closed
doers, and when, accordingly, it was not necessary
for Members to correct what was said for them by
other persons. The House at that time, ordered, at
particular times, the speeches of its favourites to be
printed ; for instance, those of Mr. Pym and Soli-
citor St. John, in the conference with the Lords;
and that of Mr.-Pym, on the subject of Strafford's
ettainder. These were recognised, as printed by
order of the House by Charles I. who entered
into an argument with the House, founded on parts
oT these speeches. After this, the speeches of per.
sons on the other side came to be reported.—
' Lord Digby printed his speech also on the subject of
Strafford's attainder ; and although the Haase had
; ordered the speeches of Pym and St. Joint to be
printed, yet fearing the effect of the soundest* of
the arguments of this speech of Lord Digby, on this
motion they condemned, after an enquiry into the
matter, the publication of it as scandalous, and a
crime, and ordered it to be burnt by the common
hangman. This case was one of the most atrocious
acts of the Long Parliament ; but it was curious that
neither the House, nor Solicitor St. John, nor Sir
Harry Vane (whose evidence, among others, was
impeached in this speech) ever thought of prose.
cuing Lord Digby. The House then grew
bolder, and resolved, that Members were bound to
deliver out no notes or copies of what was pro.
pounded or agitated in the House. These were dan-
gerous
precedents, but they showed at least that the'
House alone was the judge of what was spoken by
its Members. Sir E. Dering's speech being printed,
was also burnt by the hangman, and himself ex-
pelled. Some time after, Mr. Taylor, the Member
for Windsor, having expressed his opinion to his ,
constituents on Lord Strafford's attainder, a paper,
containing a copy of what he said was brought into
the House, and he was expelled, rendered incapable
of sitting again, imprisoned,- and ordered to ac-
knowledge his offence at the bar of the House, and
at Windsor. They thus claimed jurisdiction over
words as they had done over printed speeches, so by
parity of reasoning, if the Courts of Law had
power over the one, so would they over the other.
After the Restoration, Andrew Marvel, from the
year 1660 to 1678, used to send weekly to his
constituents at Hull an account of the proceedings
in Parliament, to all purposes a publication.--
Than these accounts, to judge from his other works,
nothing could be more sarcastic, yet he was
never visited by the Attorney-General. The
speeches of Sir F. Winnington and Lord Caven-
dish, in 1679, on'the Duke of York's exclusion Bill,
were ordered by the House to be burnt by the hang-
man ; and after the Revolution, a speech of Sir J. ,
, Knight on the Naturalization Bill, was treated in
the same manner. These speeches voted libellous '
and scandalous by the House, some libels on the
Parliament, others on the King, were never prose.
cuted in Courts of Law; and now, for the first
time, on a prosecution by a Gentleman concerned in
the collection of the revenue was it decided that they
rshould be punishable in that manner.—These cases
I occurred when there were no reports of what passed
in the Horse published ; but since the battle with
the Pi inters in 1771, the reports bad been published
in much the same manner as the reports of the pro-
' °endings in Courts of Law. In 1771, the House
committed a printer for publishing the debates, but
the magistrates, in.return, committed the messenger.
Messrs. Oliver and erosbie, two of the magistrates,
were committed by the House, but Mr. Wilkes, the ;
other, stood out, and no further notice was taken.
No resolution passed on the subject since that time.
The reports being thus authorised by usage, Members
of Parliament were the only persons precluded.from
stating what was slid by themselves; or if they did
it, they must do it at the mercy of judges, and with
the experiment of a jail. There was no legal means
of correcting these reports—the printeri might be
called to thelar and reprimanded • but it would not,
answer the purpose of setting a Member right with
his representatives, to punish those mistakes which
might be made in the hurry of reporting. It was
said by some whom he highly respected, that they
should be very jealous .of Members of Parliament
abusing their privilege of speech, but this jealousy
came too late. Debates were published, and when a
man bora the responsibility of publishing what had
been said by himself, it was much less likely
that individual character should be injured than
by the common mode of reporting. He (Mr. C.)
was very jealous on the subject of Parliamentary
Privilege, but it was of the Judges he was jealous.
It was the object of their privilege to protect them
from the Sovereign, and it was not too teach to say
that the Judges had always been willing instruments
of the Crown. This might be seen on a review 'of
their interference with the House of Commons. Inj
the time of Charles I. on a case which then occur-
red, the Judges of the King's Bench spoke for all
the world as they spoke at present. Sir J. Elliot,
and four other Members, having. been troublesoilie
in that House, were to be got rid of, and theyhav-
ing been prosecuted in the Court of King's 1
the Judges said (just as Lord Ellenborough aid Vii,
present), " We will not daem into question the trio
privilege of Parliament men,"—" but they have
no privilege to speak at their pleesure."—" The
Court of Parliament is a high Court, and so.ought
not to be disorderly." The lightness of the sen-
tence was equal to the clearness of the reasoning.—
The Defendants were to be imprisoned during the
King's pleasure,—Elliot to pay WOOl. Hells 1000
narks) and Valentine 6001. to the King. During

did*not die&
diminished; by
eage, :011 whici he could'

true, sal, he ___ not feel the least penonal sore-
ness. There were suflicienr grounds fa jealousy of
.Parliament awe body,- but these did Rot apply to the
publication .sof speeches in Parliament. Of the
abase of Parliamentary privilege, there were in-
stants not only in the bong Parliament, but in our
ow' times. In the last' Parliament proofs were ten-
dered of the trafficking of seats In that House by
some of iti Members. th his most violent breach of
privilege (as he conceived it to be) was passed over ;
but then such a miserable' person as Gale Jones of-
fended,. the Bill of Rights was read with great pomp
and ceremony, and he was committed to Newgate.
—When the Dukes of Leeds and Cumberland
interfered in elections, no uncivil proceedings
were instituted against them—but Mr. Crogan
°fended in like manner, and was committed to
priton.—Tbas the privilege of Parliament was
offensive towards defenceless Individuals, bat aban.
dead when it should by field up against the,
Crowe.--Jealousy eget reasonably be shown
towards such privilege, but not towards a Mem-
ber explaining his conduct. A case very simi-
lar to his own he should introduce, to show how
varying the conduct of Judges had been, and how
liable to be influenced by extraneous circumstances.
The case was Rex v. Wright ; -it was an information
Horne Tooke against Wright, the bookseller, for
having printed (he not being the authorised Printer
of the House of Commons), a Report of a Secret
Committee, in which Mr. Tooke was charged with
high treason. On this occasion Lord Kenyon said
that a rule nisi bad been granted under the uncer-
tainty,
whether or no the publication was what' it
'purported to be, but there being no doubt there was
Hats ground for the motion. Justice Lawrence, whom
no one doubted, was not inferior in judicial abi-
lities to Lord Ellenborough, put the publication
of Reports of proceedings of Parliament on the
footing of those of Courts of Law. Till he saw
this case reconciled with his own, he should think
that the decision in this case was such, because Mr.
Tooke happened to be obnoxious to the State. The
Bon. Gentleman concluded by proposing his Resolu-
tion, which consisted of a narration of the judicial
proceedings in his case, and the circumstances at-
' tending it.
Mr. BENNET seconded the motion.

Mr. C. W. WYNNE opposed the Motion, on the
ground that there was no precedent on which such a
matter as the present had ever been brought before
the House by way of resolution. If the House
came to a decision on this point, they must take
some steps in consequence ; but, as he saw no breach
of privilege, he should not consent to it. The sen-
timents of Mr. Fox were, that the first privilege of
Parliament was freedom of speech in the House ; but
it might be a libel if the same words were published
out of it. It was true the debates of that House did
find their way. into the newspapers, but there were
many instances in which speeches were made, parts
of which those papers would not give. He believed
the privileges of the House were the strongest bul-
wark of the Constitution, but the surest way to
overthrow that privilege would be to extend them in
the manner contended for by this motion.
Colonel O'HARA spoke in favour of the motion.
He argued, that the right of Members to give their
Constituents an account of their sentiments delivered
in Parliament, implied a right to publish them to the
kingdom at large.
Mr. WESTERN said he could not vote for the
motion of his flon. Friend, in the shape in which he
had brought it forward, though he should have voted
for an enquiry to ascertain the right of Parliament
on the subjeet. He thought it of the utmost import-
ance to guard their privileges with respect to the law
of libel from any encroachments on the part of the.
Crown. . .

Lerd A. HAMILTON observed, that if the law
were not as the judges bad laid it down, it ought, for
the general benefit of the public, to be so established;
since-Members of Parliament ought not to be al-
lowed the impunity they would possess, if the doc-
trineslaid down by Mr. Creevey were concurred in.
If it were otherwise, and Members were only to be
restrained by the House, the freedom of debate
would be more effectually abridged, as none could
speak but under the terror of correction of the
Speaker. The representatives of the people were
not to be deemed a separate class of individuals,
amenable to no law, not for what they might ntter„
but what they might afterwards deliberately publish.
Lord CASTLEREAGH said, that the better mode
of meeting the Resolution of Mr: Creevey would be
to move upon it the other orders of the day. The
subject had been already argued so much to his sa-
tisfaction, that he should only make a single remark
upon the quotation produced by an Hon. Gentle-
man (Mr. Western). He ought to recollect,
.in re-
ferring to the doctrines laid down in the document he
cited, that circumstances were now greatly changed,
and the judges were now completely independent of
the Crown, and could not be said to be at any time
influenced by its wishes.
Mr. Western, Mr. Wynne, and Lord Castlereagh
severkily explained.
Mr. WHITBREAD thouiht that his Honourable
Friend bad been perfectly regular, and had intro-
duced this subject &reedy as posiible. With regard
to himself in the proceedings, three years ago he
had steered a middle course, always contending for
moderation, because, when its privileges were pushed
to extremes, the House had uniformly been Ulmer.
Every man must be In favour of the publication of
the proceedings of Parliament, but whether the
Member himself ought to deliver his speeches to the
public, especially if they were of a libelloes ten-
dency, was soother question. Upon this, point hel
could not go the'whnle length with his lleueusibie
'.4/o,kra • r 10 ;.

ebby otfh et hutecewnheci)sasa Laryrstlgll:tuet.
cdpethreeitvali:allei.:
e ow
due
by bins were
rd
in
e
it
protectido.Minmha
i'y
o
indlvidualsecurity s
libelledaltNhdteohoopefhhitkcitat hnhdoaeueLui I aPi.
_woekialn riusPrisuui
to
ut he e
appealed Government,guhiilityprteoisennh
v
t4Offi-oeersilwinoifendit°lsaberedfflCecreuf, whether there was or
ostoioounag,:buuhsteeds
hcooa%uulliladtil
not is the power of the individual
remedy for the gross injury which be sustained
his character ? Upon the whole,
not vote In favour of the original ma
support the. Amendment of the although
Lord, he
Cretwey had done the country
smsisoldthaughetratbhalet Mserr.vice,' by introducing this important
asseaid, that the
!'Mouse
nwt u,spr?nrnootthaecaNjloeleduyr n.GautspEooNnf
Ethe
Alt
(11111:Tuhse.e.
record. mo t on but
.h rather
iie hc
he
doctrine
that
no
we receive
am so
Members
I.desiroustitutit hedwt leb°aryef-
authorisedl) a ing ap
upon
•lion. Gentleman';
nrig:it think proper to say in
Gentleman,anbalmeth'el vih
1 athep publishdour whatever a
was
If riibteirepugnantlibels
of
thteo
foulestevery principle
kind
vor
ei tat,b
Ilthellaxminega,nssoutobjoecbttasitnopusibtlicqiutyie,te
iluendaeoru lsdu cabs litir gar. ae rr:
attacks, without feeling and without resentment 1—
Was it justifiable, was it necessary, that any Mem-
her should be at liberty to send his speech to
the press, reflecting upon'the characcv and repu:n-
tion of an individual to whom he was inimical ? Such
precisely was the case of the Honourable Me.oct,
and of Mr. Kirkpatrick : and were the doors of
justice to be shut against the proceedings of the !at ter,
because the Noble Member had done that, uniter
the plea of privilege, which no other man in the
country, out of that House, could do with impu-
nity.?—An unfounded charge had been made against
Lord Kenyon ; and an unwarranted insinuation
made against Lord Ellenborough ; and thus the d, a:!
and the living were at once attacked. lie was, he
would say, very attentive to what had passed in the
Court of King's Bench before, and when setite.lce
was passed on the Honourable Member :—he per-
suaded himself he was correct in stating, Nat
Ellenborough had said, he never before heard is main.
tained and argued, that a Member could pnbli:h his
speech containing an attack upon an individual,
founded upon an unjust and injurious claim. • Ano-
ther Learned Judge had said, it was a degradation
Rif any Member to call in the assistance of Neas-
papers to give publicity to his speech, convey in;
reflections upon any individual. The motives of the
Honourable Member were entirely out of the ques-
tion, and were in fact to be estimated by the deed.
It would be absurd to enquire into the motives of
the murderer of Mr. and Mrs. Botar ; for the per-
petration of the crime sufficiently exposed theta.—
Vi:ith respect to the sente:ice, it was marked with a
degree of lenience and mitigat,d severity, caused by
the consideration, that the prosecution did not uri
from the pure sense of public justice.
Mr. CREEVEY said the Hon. and Learied
Gentleman just sat down had thought proper to in.
terrogate him as if he were a criminal at the Old
Bailey ; and after he had exhausted his questions,
any person coming into the House tui?•;lit have
!thought from the rest of his speech that he (Mr.
Creevey) was the murderer of Mr. and Mrs. Boner.
Notwithstanding the opinions he had heard that
night, he should at all times continue to exercise his
dety in the same manner whenever he thought pro-
per. Having got this precedent, the next step would
be to bring a Member into Court for what was ut-
tered by him to his constituents at the Hustings. As
the majority of the House was evidently against
him, he would submit to the motion of the Noble
Lord. He was glad that they had the admission
of the Attorney-General that the words stated to
have been uttered by Mr. Justice Grose were used by
him.

Sir W. GARROW explained.
Mr. WHITBREAD said, that he could depoße to
the words uttered by Mr. Justice Grose, as he was
present at the trial. .
.Mr. BENNET said, that he also had been in
Court and had taken down the words which ap-
peared to him to constitute a gross and scandalous
libel.
The Amendment was then carried without a divi-
sion. _ _

EAST INDIA BILL
Lord CASTLEREAGH moved the second read-
ing of this Bill, which was agreed to, and the Bill or-
dered to be committed on Monday neat.

SUPPLY.
The House haying gone into a Committee of Sup-
ply, it was resolved, " That the Sum of One Mil-
lion be raised by Exchequer Bills." After which the
House resumed, and the Report was ordered to he
brought up on Monday next.
The Land Tax Commissioners, and Deputy Re-
membrancer of Exchequer Rills were both ordered
to be committed on that day three months, and are
consequently lost for the present.
The Duty-free Goods, the Funded Debt, the Lo-
cal Tokens, the Peninsula Courts-Martial, the Mi-
litia Pay, and the Land Tax Amendment Bills sere
.severally committed, and ordered to be reported en
Monday next, with the exception of the last, which
was ordered for Tuesday.
Adjourned to Monday next.

The Theatrical Fund benefited a clear 1,0001. on
Tuesday night, principally from the united awn-
dons of Mrs. SIDDONS and Mrs. JORDAN.
In a considerable portion of North America, it is
It fundamental principle of education never to beat
a child, whether male or female. When the child
commits a halt the mother begins to cry, and her
tears haves more powerful effect than every other
sort of correction. When the fault is repeated the
greatest correction is, to throw a glass of wuter
iu
the child's face.

•
1.011)ON : Printed and l'lthlisbrd by Imvu. at to
STermilicOrtics, 67. Flett.st.-txt.

* • ..,, •

_ ..
TIIE STA3T.SIIIAN:.
.. . ,
tv.. _ .
L.,
~._ _,.
__ _._ ..
Le swab; that` Its- the seitioidg", tilieliiteilfifiri A#sparvin im. IVirmail'aithiegh he apPioved of 'latch
lof what ha had said paw% gempook• tifm• ewe notini'lldirentliWriailit) tinker many of the remarks that
of the remarks, had lin fairer nf .11te fiwilasalbst4ofor the Veit . • rbi. Pan*. -Be was somewhat surprised by
en. Suck a doctrine ; mil. . ,:-Isron, 14 .A. Oso stveorer- tailed I for esteems pronounced by the Nob',
',etween the Repro. lesm 'ft 14edS,
,71`. t, Sher Chhe(,Stoeltet dectsp . our courts of Justice; but while the II
This too, at the timer! a:. e 'lf ~ . likii, "'that', he (14eri S.) i' videos, for the welfare and security of I
by the•practite of lisn •Ma - ' thiliiihit ate' fofleiteted of 'high boa. I ought not to forget the protection due
irners%
' law Members wire we'. Thekrifant `lllieledhode this after the Rate= i Membeis; • If the individual libelled h;
udelf they chose to : reilmity Olio tart 1110 Mt: Williams, the Speaker , against the libeifer, what remedy had
of the Jodges.—Thds lof tijakip enseklo,,,, ..for hiring published, ,by, againsithe unroll** assertioni of the
se (and what wain*. order. o the ease, a aansgwg or the press of pose it was said (nett had been in his p
ould infer that it was ; the Bill for @minding the Puke of York. 'these 'his Honourable lorignd.had. been guilty
ad not be allowed to ! specimens of Jatßifigioasty and law tildnot dimi- , stance, of a libel upon the late . Mr. I
conduct to his Con. 1 nishitisjesioney 4 Oak sot was it diminished; by that he wiis disaffected to the Geverno
were not a bona fsde! the Proteitilass is.llf44ll.case, 'on which he could.; to obtain no. redress ? He appealed
', he contended, that I truly saj, he did nit Ibei the least personal sore- ' Of of the Crown_ wh..k... .1.--