Mr. Courtenayhaving moved the order of the day, the House proceeded to take into consideration the complaint, which upon Friday, was made to the House of a printed pamphlet, intituled, A "Trifling Mistake in Lord Erskine's recent Preface."
§ Mr. Elliceimmediately rose, and said, that in order to save the time of the House, and that no unmerited punishment might fall upon the publisher of the pamphlet in question, he had been instructed by its author to avow his name, and to add, that he would readily obey any order of the House requiring his attendance. The author was a particular friend of his, and his name was John Cam Hobhouse.
Mr. Courtenaydid not wish to give unnecessary trouble, but he apprehended that what had already occurred on a former day would impose upon the House the necessity of having the publisher brought to the bar: an order had been made for the attendance of Robert Stodart, and he felt it right, therefore, to move that he be examined, although unquestionably what had fallen from the hon. gentleman, afforded the House sufficient knowledge of the author of the libel.
The order of the day was then rend, and the Speaker inquired whether Robert Stodart was in attendance. The Serjeant at Arms reported in the affirmative, and it was ordered that he should be called in. He was put to the bar accordingly, and interrogated by the Speaker.
What is your name?—Robert Stodart.
Look at that pamphlet, and state whether it was published by you?—It was.
Do you know the author?—I do.
State at length the names of Mr. Hobhouse; his Christian as well as surname— John Cam Hobhouse.—The witness was then ordered to withdraw.
Mr. Courtenayobserved, that after what had passed, it was undoubtedly not consistent with his view of the case to visit the printer or publisher of the libel with any punishment. It was the duty of the House to take notice of such a publication, and the gentleman who was the author of it had avowed himself. He would move, therefore, in the first instance, that Robert Stodart be discharged, and next, that Mr. John Cam Hobhouse be ordered to attend.
§ Mr. Ellicesaid, that Mr. Hobhouse was not in town at the present moment; he was in the country with his father, who was ill, but he would readily attend if an order were made out for that purpose: he would be able to attend tomorrow.
Mr. Courtenaywas desirous that every 1011 reasonable accommodation should be afforded to the individual: he had been made acquainted with the domestic call made upon Mr. Hobhouse, and it would be sufficient if he could attend tomorrow. He moved accordingly to that effect.
§ Mr. Tierneywished the hon. member just to state the purpose he had in view in requiring the attendance of Mr. Hobhouse.
§ The Speakerapprehended that the hon. mover was mistaken in the situation in which the publisher was placed: Robert Stodart was not in custody, as he had only been ordered to attend the House to-day. As to the necessity of the attendance of Mr. Hobhouse himself, if it had depended merely upon the information of the publisher, it would be fit, according to all the precedents, that Mr. Hobhouse himself should be called before the House, that he might, if he were able, disprove the assertion, and show that he was not the author of the libel. Here, however, a declaration had been made through an hon. member by Mr. Hobhouse, admitting that he was the author, and it seemed therefore unnecessary that he should be called upon to attend at the bar Such was the: ordinary course of proceeding; but, in the particular case, the House would judge for itself.
Mr. Courtenaythanked the chair for the information supplied. As it now appeared, from the highest authority, that after an avowal of the author, such as had been made, it was not necessary that the House should order his attendance; the course he had to pursue was extremely plain and simple. He would, therefore, advert very shortly to the nature of the offence that had been committed, and to the manner in which he conceived it ought to be visited. He hoped the view he had taken of the subject would meet with the general feeling and concurrence of the House. He had no difficulty in stating, that it had been a matter of very anxious consideration with him how to make up his mind as to the particular mode in which the House ought to punish an offence of this kind. He could assure the House, that he had consulted with his hon. friend opposite (Mr. Wynn), and after the fullest inquiry, he was persuaded, that the question would not be met properly if the House did not proceed to take the punishment into its own hands, by ordering the commitment of the 1012 offender. He would not waste the time of the House by arguing upon the existence of the right of commitment, which all honourable members, with a single exception, admitted [Hear.] He would, however, for his own satisfaction, and perhaps for the satisfaction of the House, or of those members who had not given the subject the same degree of attention that, he had bestowed upon it, read a single passage from the report of a committee appointed to examine the question, and the result of whose labours was most conclusive: the report was terminated as follows:—" This power is in truth part of the fundamental law of parliament: the law of parliament is the law of the landpart of the lex terræ mentioned in Magna Charta, where it is declared that no freeman shall be taken or imprisoned but by the judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land, and is as much within the meaning of those words, the law of the land, as the universally acknowledged power of commitment for contempt by. courts of justice in Westminster-half, which courts have a summary power of punishing the offender. Your committee are, therefore, of opinion, that this power is founded on the clearest principles of right, is proved by immemorial usage, and is recognized and sanctioned by the highest legal authorities; that it grew up with our constitution; that it is established and confirmed as clearly and incontrovertibly as any part of the law of the land, and is one of the most important safe-guards of the rights and liberties of the people." This decision of the committee had been confirmed by the opinions of individuals entitled to the utmost weight, and who were some of the firmest friends of the liberty of the press, and of the constitutional rights of the people. He would not fatigue the House by going through them, but he would just advert to the manner in which Mr. Fox had expressed himself on this subject: he had said that it never could be intended that an offender should escape with impunity; and with regard to ordering a prosecution to be commenced by the attorney-general, his words were—" It does not appear to me that this is the just mode of proceeding, in cases of this nature: courts of justice have never, or at least very seldom, adopted the practice of ordering prosecutions for contempt; and, therefore, if a libel be written against the House of Commons, the author ought more properly to be 1013 punished by the House; and it is by no means advisable to send it to such a mode of trial as has been, alluded to." Mr. Fox was quite clear that the offence resembled contempts of court; and that, as such, it ought to be punished by the House. It was impossible that the case on which the above opinion was given, or, indeed, any that could be pointed out in the history of parliament could be so strong as that which was under consideration: it was not a constructive, but an actual contempt of the House; and no doubt, he believed, would be entertained of the absolute necessity of committing the offender. As to libels attacking the government of the country, and incidentally touching either branch of the legislature, he could make great allowance for the irritated feelings of distressed mechanics suffering under temporary pressure; he could make great allowance for the editor of a daily paper, who in the hurry of business had allowed a paragraph to appear to which, in his cooler moments he would be loth to give publicity; but he could hardly make any allowance for the deliberate act of an individual, who had ventured to give currency and general circulation to sentiments like those contained in the pamphlet now before the House, and who could scarcely, without the greatest remorse, he should suppose, have contemplated the consequences that might have followed the incitement he had thus given to the ignorant. [Hear.] He did not wish to press the case at all beyond what the House might fairly think it would bear; for his object only was to carry into effect the general feeling of those who heard him. If the majority of honourable members differed from him, which he did not believe, as to the course of punishment he ought to suggest, he would willingly acquiesce in any amendment. He had stated his own view of the question, as he conceived his duty required, and he should conclude, in order to lay a foundation for future proceedings, by calling upon the House to pass a resolution, expressive of the character which, in his opinion, belonged to the publication he had brought before it. He then moved "that the said pamphlet is a scandalous libel, containing matter calculated to inflame the people into acts of violence against the legislature, and against this House in particular; and that it is a high contempt of the privileges and constitutional authority of the House."
1014 The question was then put upon the resolution, and it was carried, the voice of Sir F. Burdett only being heard in the negative. Mr. Courtenay also moved, "That John Cam Hobhouse, esq., having acknowledged himself to be the author of the said pamphlet, has been guilty of an high contempt of the privileges and of the constitutional authority of the House."— This resolution was carried as the former, Sir F. Burdett persisting in his dissent.
Mr. Courtenaythen observed, that some particular circumstances had been stated to him, that made it desirable at the present moment not to decide upon the ultimate place of punishment, whether it should or should not be Newgate. He apprehended that the proper motion would now be, that Mr. Hobhouse be committed to the custody of the serjeant-at-arms, and it could subsequently be determined whether it would be fit to send him to New-gate or elsewhere.
§ Mr. Broughamsaid, that before the question was put, he wished to be informed of the necessity under the circumstances for the previous and intermediate punishment. The hon. gentleman was no doubt aware of the consequences of such a proceeding, namely, that the individual must be brought to the bar, besides being exposed to the inconvenience of having heavy fees to pay. At any rate, the circumstances mentioned by his hon. friend (Mr. Ellice) would be enough to warrant the House in sending Mr. Hobhouse to Newgate to-morrow, or to whatever other place of confinement the House might think expedient. It had been stated by the hon. member for Coventry, that the individual in question had left town to perform an office of filial piety—to visit his father, who who was in a dangerous state of health, as it was of consequence that he should see him before he submitted to the punishment the House might determine to inflict. He did not mean to say any thing against the mode of proceeding recommended; on the contrary, it was the only way in which the House could properly proceed on a question of this kind [Hear, hear!]. For one, he should always protest against that anomalous process of sending a question of parliamentary privilege to be tried by any other court than itself [Hear, hear!]. He was decidedly in favour of the more immediate and direct course; and however grave the offence might be, the House he was sure would not inflict a double punishment, or at- 1015 tempt to deprive the person accused of the means of visiting and conferring with his father.
Mr. Courtenayimmediately rose and stated, that he had never been more surprised than by what he had just heard.— Unquestionably he had been prepared to make the ordinary and regular motion for the commitment of Mr. Hobhouse to Newgate; but an hon. friend of his and of Mr. Hobhouse (Mr. Ellice), had previously stated some circumstances which made him particularly wish that the previous and intermediate course, now reprobated, should be pursued for the convenience of the offender. In return for this anxiety to accommodate, he had been treated with the tirade just delivered, imputing to him an intention to aggravate the punishment: he was convinced that the House would acquit him of any such purpose [Hear!]. He was now left, therefore, without any alternative; he must make his first motion for commitment to Newgate; though if any amendment were offered for changing the place of confinement, he should be happy to acquiesce on the statement of sufficient grounds. He then moved, "That John Cam Hobhouse, esq., be for his said offence, committed to his majesty's gaol of Newgate."
§ Mr. Broughamadded, in explanation, that he found it difficult to conceive how any other man but the hon. member opposite, and the hon. gentleman who had made the suggestion, could think that it would be Mr. Hobhouse's wish to be taken into custody forthwith, that he might thus be exposed to two sorts of punishment.—. He was not to be blamed for supposing that it must be the wish of the party accused that the ordinary course should be adopted, though if Mr. Hobhouse really was desirous of being taken into the custody of the sergeant-at-arms, he could have no possible objection.
§ Mr. Elliceobserved, that before he came down to the House he had seen Mr. Hobhouse, who was anxious to make a frank avowal that he was the author of the pamphlet, both to save the time of the House and to prevent the punishment of any other person but himself. Knowing pretty accurately what the consequences of such an acknowledgment would be, he had felt it his duty, feeling a very warm friendship for Mr. Hobhouse, to inquire into the state of the place where it was most likely it would be ordered that the offender should be confined, and he found 1016 that it would be almost impossible for Mr. Hobhouse to be received in Newgate, unless he were to be put into the same room with a convicted felon. The House would, therefore, see his reason for wishing that in the first instance Mr. Hobhouss should be placed in the charge of the serjeant-at-arms. He did not suppose that on this account he would be exposed to any additional punishment, by fine or fees; and it was at his instance that the hon. member had moved for the intermediate commitment which would require the attendance of Mr. Hobhouse to-morrow. If blame was imputable to any body, he must certainly remove it from the shoulders of the hon. member who had made the motion.
Mr. Wynncould not help thinking that some difficulty might arise in point of regularity of proceeding; he did not see how the motion, that Mr. Hobhouse be sent to Newgate in the first instance, could be executed without a commitment to the custody of the sergeant-at-arms.— The only persons who could take him were the serjeant-at-arms or his deputy, who were the officers of the House. There were, undoubtedly, cases where the order of commitment to the serjeant-at-arms was not preceded by an order of commitment to Newgate, but then the party had been summoned to appear at the bar, and was actually in the possession of the House. Unless a previous motion for commitment to the Serjeant were made, he did not see how Mr. Hobhouse was to get to Newgate, unless, which was not to be expected, he should voluntarily go to the keeper of the prison, requiring to be put into a place of security. He therefore thought that the original motion was the proper one; but he did not on that ground apprehend that the necessary consequence would be that he should be brought to the bar. The course would be that at the next, or the next sitting but one, the serjeant at arms should report that he had taken Mr. Hobhouse into custody, and then would follow an order for his commitment to Newgate. Of this, repeated instances might be pointed out; but one of the most recent was that of general Clavering, who had been guilty of prevarication, and the serjeant was directed to take him into custody. The serjeant reported that he had obeyed the order, and a vote was passed immediately that he should be committed to Newgate.
§ The Speakerthought it necessary to say a few words in point of form. In many
| |1017 instances where the ulterior destination had been Newgate, a previous order had been made for committing the offender to the custody of the Serjeant: other cases could be shown where a direct order had been given that the party be committed to Newgate. He apprehended that the difficulty suggested was not the reason which led to the double motion; the reason was, where the individual so ordered to be taken was not known, or where it could not be ascertained whether he could be found—for it was first necessary to find him, before the order could be executed: if he were known, and his address, no such difficulty could arise, and the order for sending him to Newgate was followed up by a direction to the speaker to issue his warrants, one of them to the serjeant-at-arms to take the offender, and the other to the gaoler of Newgate, or of any other person determined upon to receive him and detain him. Thus much he could assert with confidence, that instances enough could be found to support the regularity of the proceeding now suggested.
Sir C. Burrellobserved, that the gaoler could have no power to take a prisoner unless delivered with a proper warrant.— It appeared that the gentleman must go and deliver himself up. [No, no.]
§ The Speakerinterposed, and again explained what he had before stated regarding the issue of his two warrants. The warrants were entrusted to the serjeant-at-arms, as the officer of the House, and on delivery of one of them to the gaoler, any refusal to receive and detain would be treated by the House instantaneously as a gross contempt of its order.
Sir C. Burrellcontinued, that he was happy to have been set right, and he would make but one further observation. An hon. gentleman had stated, that he had visited Newgate, and found that Mr. Hobhouse, if confined there, must be placed with common felons. Would the House, then, commit the party to a gaol where he must be exposed to such a situation? [Hear!] In common kindness therefore, time for further consideration ought to be allowed; and for this purpose he would move as an amendment, "That Mr. Hobhouse be taken into the custody of the serjeant-at-arms."
§ The amendment having been Seconded, the question was put upon it.
Mr. Courtenaysaid, that this amendment exactly brought back the question to what he had himself suggested. He 1018 had been actuated precisely by the same feeling that had influenced the hon. baronet, and it was his anxious desire not to subject Mr. Hobhouse to confinement in a place wholly unfit for the purpose the House had in view.
Sir C. Burrelladded, that his object merely was to afford the House time to deliberate as to the most proper place of confinement.
Mr. Courtenaysaid, that if Mr. Hobhouse were first taken into the custody of the serjeant-at-arms, that object would be accomplished, and he did not conceive that it would be any intermediate punishment.
Mr. Alderman Woodsaid, that the state of the gaol of Newgate was at present such that the House would not think it right to commit to it any gentleman of respectability for an offence of this kind. At present there were not less than 300 prisoners within the walls, and it was not possible to give Mr. Hobhouse a separate apartment. He had however no hesitation in saying, that accommodation might be afforded, although perhaps he was not exactly at liberty to say where, but in a situation which all the law-officers of the crown admitted was legally within the walls. Of course, time must be allowed to make the necessary arrangements, and at most, a day or two might be required for that purpose.
§ Mr. R. Martin, although he would be the last man to propose any aggravation of punishment, yet having attended when persons had been committed for similar offences, he saw no reason why the House should be more lenient or considerate of the individual now before it, unless it was because he was infinitely richer or better informed. If the House proceeded in the manner now suggested with Mr. Hobhouse, it might be imputed that it was afraid to deal with him as it had dealt with others. If the prison of Newgate was in the condition represented, was not that a reason for not sending thither other persons who had, notwithstanding, been committed to that prison? If Mr. Hobhouse, after having been confined there, should complain that his health was injured by the mode and place of imprisonment, that application ought to receive attention. He would infinitely rather adopt a resolution that the attorney-general should be directed to prosecute, than, in times like the present, proceed in the -manner recommended, and for such unsatisfactory reasons as had been alleged.
Sir F. Burdettrose amidst cries of "Question," and proceeded to make some observations in support of the matter contained in the pamphlet, when he was interrupted by
§ The Speaker, who said, he was quite satisfied, that, on a little reflection, the hon. baronet would perceive the course he was taking was not the proper one, since it impeached the opinion of the House at large.
Sir F. Burdettsaid, the plain and intelligible; mode was that which he wished to adopt —a mode that would enable him to express his opinion on the whole of the master under consideration. The present, as it appeared to him, was an unusually hard case. In the first place, he did not think the House had given, sufficient attention to the publication which they had been called on to vote a breach of their privileges. He had read the pamphlet since it had been taken notice of by the House, and, however gross the language might be—language which he certainly did not mean to defend—he denied that any such intention, as that which was imputed to him, existed in the mind of the writer, namely, the desire of exciting a strong popular feeling, which might break out into acts of force and violence against the members of that House. It was the opinion of the writer, and that opinion he had freely expressed, that this House did not possess legitimate authority; that it was not alone supported, as it should be, by the affection and respect of the people, but by means of practices the most corrupt and objectionable.
Lord Castlereaghrose to order. He put it to the Speaker, whether the hon. baronet could regularly proceed in this course of argument? He apprehended that it was not competent to the hon. baronet to state his sentiments on the nature of the publication. He might have discussed that question when the resolution defining the nature of the publication was before the House; but that period having gone by, the hon. baronet was not now at liberty to address himself to that part of the question. The point immediately under consideration was the place of commitment to which the author of the publication was to be sent; and, in discussing that question, the hon. baronet could not go into a general statement of the nature of the libel.
§ Mr. Broughamsaid, it was now undoubtedly too late for his hon. friend to 1020 go into the question of libel or no libel. He ought to have argued that question before, when the declaratory resolution was proposed. But it appeared to him, that though they had pronounced this publication to be a libel, still, when the question of the quantum of punishment came to be considered, it was competent for his hon. friend to urge every matter that went to the extenuation of that punishment. He must admit, on the one hand, that it was a libel; it was too late to assert the contrary, since the House had so decided; but, on the other hand, he was at liberty to say every tiling short of that. His hon. friend stood in the situation of a person in a court of law speaking in mitigation of punishment, and advancing all the favourable topics which he could recollect.
Sir F. Burdettsaid, he was going to prove that the House had no right to decide in this case. It was evident, however, that there was no great inclination to hear him. This was the justice administered by Rhadamanthus—or rather worse: for Rhadamanthus punished first, and heard afterwards; but the House awarded punishment, and would not hear at all [Order, order!] He objected entirely to the motion, which he did not the more approve of, because it had the sanction of the noble lord opposite. The punishment arising out of so strange and extraordinary a trial ought to be viewed with the most scrupulous jealousy, and the House ought to hear every thing in favour of the accused party. It was one very strong ground of extenuation, that other persons were suffered to go at large, and to commit with impunity breaches of the privileges of that House, without animadversion from any quarter whatsoever. In proof of this, he would read a passage from a newspaper which he held in his hand—a print connected with that part of the press which was more immediately under the control of government—which, he contended, presented a more unjust, a more mischievous, a more improper comment on the conduct of the members of that House, than any thing contained in the book which had been brought under their consideration. He held in his hand "The Morning Post" of Friday last, from which he would read an extract.
Mr. Wynnrose to order. He submitted whether it was not impossible, consistently with the usage of the House, to superadd, on one breach of privilege, 1021 another of a grosser character? When the breach of privilege which at present occupied the House was heard and disposed of, the hon. baronet might proceed to call their attention to any similar case, He objected to the reading of any newspaper for such a purpose as the hon. baronet had stated. It was, he apprehended, distinctly contrary to the orders and regulations of that House, to read, in mitigation of the sentence which that House was about to pronounce on one who had been convicted of a high breach of privilege, another breach of privilege of a more offensive nature. The newspaper, he contended, could not be read in that House for any other purpose but to complain of it as containing a breach of privilege.
Sir F. Burdettsaid, notwithstanding all that had fallen from the hon. and learned gentleman, he was not aware that he was out of order in the course he was pursuing. Considering different cases of this nature, it did appear to him that a very strong ground of extenuation was made out, when it was proved that impunity was extended to some, while punishment was awarded to others, for the like offence. He should be placed in a very awkward situation—his mouth would be completely stopped, if the House adopted the principle laid down by the hon. and learned gentleman. In that case, he should be placed in this predicament, that he could not read an extract from the paper to which he had alluded, because he did not mean to complain of any breach of privilege. Indeed, he held that the writing then under consideration was not a breach of the privilege of that House [Hear, hear!]. For the fair and necessary privileges and regulations of the House of Commons no man was more willing to stand up; but that which was complained of was a mere constructive breach of privilege. Interrupting the proceedings of that House, interfering with its officers, or preventing the execution of a process emanating from it—these he considered breaches of privilege; but the present was a wholly different question; He should now proceed to read an extract from "The Morning Post," which was couched in these terms:—"In the House of Commons last night, Mr. Bennett brought forward his promised-motion, ostensibly for an inquiry into the present state of the manufacturing districts, but really for the promotion of party and mischievous views."
Mr. Bankesrose to order. He submitted that it was impossible for the hon. baronet or any other gentleman, to be allowed to read a paper of that kind within the walls of the House of Commons.
§ The Speakerand Mr. Brougham rose at the same moment, and the latter gentleman seeming determined to deliver his sentiments, the Speaker gave way.
§ Mr. Broughamsaid, they all knew that no individual bowed to the sentiments delivered from the chair with greater reverence, on this and every other important and delicate question, than he did. He could not, however, so far abdicate his functions, as a member of that House, as not to throw out what occurred to him, on this occasion, before that decision was pronounced, which, coming from the chair, would of course be final. He meant no disrespect when he said, that, in his opinion, the hon. and learned gentleman had been a little hasty in forming his judgment on this question. It had always been allowed to introduce the notoriety of publications of this nature as a proper topic to be advanced in extenuation of punishment. As a proof of this, he called on the House to look to the case of Mr. Reeves; but more particularly to examine the view which Mr. Pitt took of another breach of privilege, which was one of the latest that occurred before the present administration came into power. It would be found, he believed, that the printer of a newspaper called "The True Briton" was brought to the bar of the House, for publishing reflections on the impeachment of lord Melville. The notoriety of the fact, that many observations of a similar kind had been published with impunity, was justly viewed by the House as matter of extenuation, and the printer was dismissed with a reprimand. If there was any impropriety in reading the passage to which the hon. baronet adverted, there was an equal impropriety in reading the pamphlet which had been complained of. Then, why did they not, on a former night, stop the hon. member for Yorkshire, when he read the pamphlet, without meaning to found any motion on it? He asked this, because there was no rule with respect to a newspaper that would not apply with equal force to a pamphlet. The hon. member for Yorkshire read a pamphlet without molestation. No one called him to order; no one exclaimed, "Down with your pamphlet?" and it was not till the reading was over, till the 1023 debate (a part of the matter of that pamphlet having been used as an argument in the course of it, and having, for aught he knew, influenced the decision which the House came to)—then, for the first time, was the hon. member for Yorkshire requested to inform the House, whether he intended to make that pamphlet the ground of complaint for a breach of privilege. No one stopped him, no one suggested the propriety of interrupting him, as he proceeded reading various extracts from the publication [Hear!]. It appeared to him, that what was justice and reason in one case, must also be Justice and reason in another. With that feeling he could sec no reason whatsoever for preventing the hon. baronet from reading the passage to which he wished to draw their attention.
Mr. Bankessaid, it was for the House to proceed according to its regular and established practice. He recollected, generally, the debate to which the hon. and learned member alluded, and, he believed the House decided not on any particular instance, such as the hon. baronet wished to introduce, but on the general notoriety of the fact, that libellous or disrespectful matter, treating that House with contempt, had been suffered to pass with impunity. If the hon. baronet pleased to take that line of argument, generally, he thought he had a right to do so. All that he and his learned friend objected to was the reading a paragraph out of a newspaper, the very first word of which constituted a breach of the privilege of that House. The hon. baronet could not do this unless he meant to found a complaint on it. The distinction was clear between proceeding in a general line of argument, and adverting to a particular paragraph, which, he repeated, could not be introduced except for the purpose of making a formal complaint.
§ The Speakersaid, that the House would perhaps excuse him for endeavouring, under their judgment and correction, to state what occurred to him with respect to the two principles that had been alluded to, and the ordinary course of proceeding in debates of this nature. He took it to be quite clear, that the House having decided that an offence was committed, and that that offence was a breach of their privileges, it was too late now to advance any argument to disprove the correctness of the decision. But he thought it was equally clear, when the question before the House was the quan- 1024 tum of punishment with which the offence should be visited, that it was open to any hon. gentleman to state that which, in his opinion, might be adduced in favour of lightening the punishment. The House would, he believed, go thus far with him. But the House must be aware, that to say matter might be urged in extenuation, was a very wide expression, and it was desirable that such vague terms should be defined. What occurred to his mind with respect to reading any paper (for he confessed he saw no difference between quoting a pamphlet and a newspaper.), was, that the reading of words stronger and more offensive than those which had been adjudged libel by the House, could not be done for the purpose of extenuation, but only where the person introducing them meant to advance them as a breach of privilege [Hear!]. He thought, if any honourable member brought forward that which he conceived to be a breach of privilege, he was bound to do so for the purpose of preferring a complaint, and not otherwise. He did not know whether he had made himself intelligible, but he would endeavour to explain his meaning fully. It did appear to him that the line of argument adopted by the hon. baronet would have stood in a very different situation, if it had been urged before the House had found the publication complained of to be a libel, and not subsequently to that decision; because it would have been open for him to have stated, that certain words, which he could produce, were stronger than those which had been brought under the consideration of the House; he might then go on to prove, that those stronger words did not constitute a libel, and consequently, that the weaker were not libellous. But the House having decided, it was not competent for any gentleman to argue that the publication was not a libel. Therefore, if this paragraph were read at all in extenuation, it could only be urged, as not being a libel, because if it were, no member could state it, unless he meant to make a complaint. If it were adduced as not libellous, it evidently would not bear on the question, because the House had already decided, that the publication to which their attention had been called, was a libel. If he were right in this position, he felt that the adducing any quotations, and stating them to contain libels of a grosser nature than that complained of, was liable to two objections—1st, because 1025 they would not be applicable to the point of libel or not libel, because that point had already been decided by the House; and next, they were not applicable generally, because non constat, if those quotations had been brought before the House, that they would be deemed libels. Having said this, he begged to observe, that it was matter of importance, for the character of the House, that hon. members should feel, individually, a desire not to stretch to any excess those privileges, which were given, not for the purpose of working injustice and injury, but in order to produce great public benefit.
Mr. Wynnwished to know, whether it was not ordained amongst the first orders of that House that no member whatsoever should be at liberty to read any printed paper, except with the permission of the House, unless he meant to make a complaint? If that was not amongst the orders of the House, he had only to state that he had heard it so laid down, and acquiesced in, by very competent authorities many years ago.
§ The Speakersaid, he was very much mistaken if any thing that had fallen from him tended to invalidate the statement of the hon. and learned gentleman. But he certainly could not draw any distinction between one sort of publication and another. The order, as it was stated by the hon. and learned gentleman, was quite correct. But, in the ordinary course of debate, nothing was more common than to read extracts from papers as part of a speech. The practice and order of the House were perfectly consistent with each other. The practice was for general convenience; the order was to prevent it from being carried to abuse. The strict order, if he were called on for his opinion, did, he believed, prohibit the reading of extracts from any publication.
Mr. Stuart Worthysaid, in answer to what had fallen from Mr. Brougham, that the material difference between the proceeding adopted by him, and that pursued by the hon. baronet, appeared to be, that, though he (Mr. Wortley) did not found on the publication he quoted a complaint of a breach of the privileges of the House; be animadverted on it as an improper publication; whilst the hon. baronet stated as a reason for his quotation, that though the publication before the House was a libel, he could produce still greater libels which had not been punished. This, was contrary to the practice of the House.
Sir F. Burdettsaid, he thought it was his duty to take the line he had done, although unsuccessfully. He perceived it was very useless to oppose the motion then before the House. He would not, therefore, trouble them farther on this occasion; but when at a future time the question came before them, whether this gentleman should or should not be committed to Newgate, he would then state his opinion at length.
§ The SpeakerThat is the question now before the House.
Sir C. Burrellsaid, as it appeared that the sense of the House was against his amendment, he was unwilling to press it. [Cries of" No, no."]
§ The House then divided on the question, "That the words proposed to be left out, namely, "his majesty's gaol of Newgate,'' remain part of the question. For the motion, 198: Against it, 65; Majority, 133.
§ On our re-admission to the gallery, we found lord Nugent on his legs. He was suggesting the propriety of sending Mr. Hobhouse to some other prison, in consequence of what had been said with respect to the crowded state of Newgate.
§ The Speakersaid, the question just decided in the affirmative was, whether particular words should stand part of the question or not? Amongst these, was found the word, "Newgate." As it had been decided that it should 6tand part of the question, it could not be altered by any amendment. An alteration could alone be effected by negativing the whole motion. The main question which he had now to put was—" That John Cam Hobhouse, Esq., be for his said offence, committed to his majesty's gaol of New-gate."
§ This motion was agreed to without a division. Mr. Courtenay then moved, "That the Speaker do issue his warrant accordingly."—Agreed to.