The Arkansas advocate., 1832-09-26

hdXanceds one nahu raised 10 parry j, 1 and the other 10 strike.
 The German Protocol against liberty arouses the feelingso of freemen, wherev- CT 1t is read. Mary think 1t viii ikiintiie a fire for the purifcation of the political institutions oi Germany, Italy, and oth CTS around.
 PARLIAMENTARY pnlyILEeE.-Inthe House ot Gonmohs recently, a petition was presented which gave rise to heightened discussion concerning inc privileges of the House. t appeared rom debates, that criminal action for libel had been instituted against Dr. Lusiiington-the libel complained of being contained in speech delivered by the defendant in the House. but corrected and published by him ir a pa- per called the "gniuor of Parliament.n The petition now presented, set forth that the prosecutor could not safely 20 to trial without proving a certain fact from the journals of the House, and prayed that the proper officer might be directedto attend the court with the journals. An application for this pur- pose had previously been made to the Speaker, with which he had refused to comply. As d justification for this re. fusal, the speaker stated that a similar application had been made in a former fyear, whichthe house refused to acceae Ito, and he had governed himself bv that decision as precedent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer opposed q motion in favor of granting the request of the petition, upon the ground that it was contrary to the privileges of Par lament, that words spoken in debate should in any way be taken into consid. eration in court of justice. Mr. O. Gonnell supported the motion. contend. ing that the journals were wanted for reierence-nott 10 what had been said in debate by the gentleman against whom q bill Of indictment had been found.- butto pFoVemerely a dry fact. Itthere-
 lore had no reference 10 the liberty of speech of that house. Sir Robert Peel advocated the prayer of the petitioner -arguing. hat as Dr. LusAln .,or, had hfmse5f pubiished Us speech ia the Mirror of Parliamenf, he had TO more ckaiua to= protection hon tho4gh he zoere altogetlef ,aeoraected with4he House; and as the
 House Of Commons exercises a general superihtendenee over the courts of jus. lice, he could not perceive what right they had to refuse the applicaton.- 1 ghe Chancellor of the Excheouer. ('.ofd Althorp) modified his previously expressed opinion, so far as 10 admit that the journals might possibly be yielded for the proving dry fact sim. ply; but he thought the greatest can. ton should be observed, and the present case, he also thought, was one of ex- treme difficulty. The Speaker having been appealed to for his opinion in the premises, stated that opinion to be, that the libel, fit was a libel, was indie ta- ble because H had been published; and it would not have been indlctahle. if the speech which it tpurports to be, had6een con.faed acithin the acaA of he House. = 'lhe ofleace, therefore, was complete. by the publication of the speech. But the calling rthe journals, with refer ence 10 the libel, would be carrying the libel one step farther back than the pub. llcatlon. and be introducing that which had taken place within the walls of Par iiament itself. After an explanation from the Counsel for the prosecution. who Is member of the house, and some further discussion, the views of the Speaker seemed generally to be ac- quleseed in. and the motion to yield lhe journals for the use of the prosecn- 'ioi was Withdrawn. It may, there. fore, we presume, be received as the Parliamentary law of England, that, although the uttering of Hbellous speech within the walls of Parliament, fs no offence, yet the publisher of such speech IS to be held equally as amend. ble to the laws therefor, as though tbe libel 1t contains were the deliberate coinage of his own workshop. Such may possibly he the law of the United States; but no jury would ever be found to convict, or even to find a bill. for the publication of fair and honest report.
 TEXAS.