Commons Sitting of 14 June 1819

CONTAGION IN THE PLAGUE.
Sir J. Jacksonbrought up the Report of the committee appointed to inquire whether the plague was or was not a contagious disease. In moving that it be laid on the table, the hon. baronet stated, that he differed from the opinion contained in the report, namely that the plague was a contagious disease, since the contrary appeared from the evidence of several medical gentlemen who had been examined. Dr. M'Cleod, a very intelligent medical man, said, that it would be impossible to bring the disorder to England, even if a large premium were offered for that purpose. Dr. Mitchell had also expressed a very strong opinion on the subject. A considerable time since, he had broached the opinion, that the disorder denominated plague was not in its nature, contagious; that the sick might be visited with safety, unless those who did so came into immediate contact with them. From the evidence of Mr. Green it appeared that the Turks constantly bought the clothes of persons who died of the plague, which they were in the habit of wearing; and yet many of them were not affected by the disease. This evidence having been given, he conceived that he was fully warranted in coming to an opinion different from that at which the committee had arrived. The consequence of the dread which existed lest the plague should be communicated from foreign countries occasioned ships to perform quarantine, or their crews to be placed in lazarettos, greatly to the inconvenience of mercantile men. Now, it was remarkable that not one instance of plague had occurred since the introduction of this system, which was a century ago. If the plague had never appeared on board ships which, during that period had been obliged to perform quarantine, the fair presumption was, that the danger apprehended was visionary, and that the quarantine system might very well be dispensed with.
Mr. Morrittcontended, that a part of the evidence given before the committee,
1134
went to prove distinctly that the plague was contagious. The report was signed by all the members of the committee, except the hon. baronet.
Sir Isaac Coffinprotested against, any alteration in the quarantine laws. Those who said the plague was not contagious, ought to recollect that it broke out in London in 1665, and swept away a vast number of inhabitants. Probably the infection would not have been destroyed to this day, if the city had not been burned to the ground in 1666.
The Report was ordered to be printed;

PETITIONS AGAINST THE NEW TAXES.
Mr. Dickinsonrose to present petitions from Shepton Mallet and Frome, against the contemplated duty on wool. The petitioners stated, that, if the measure were carried into effect, it would occasion the total ruin of the woollen manufacture.
The Speakersaid, that the bill, providing for this additional duty, had been read the first time, and was now awaiting the second reading. He doubted, therefore, whether the petitions could be received.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, it would be against the established rule of the House to receive those petitions, as they were directed against a tax which was voted as part of the supplies of the year.
Lord Miltonobserved, that the question was, whether the bill alluded to, and the other bills of the same description, were for the supplies of the year? He thought they were not so. They were not to furnish the supplies of the year, but to support a sinking fund for the reduction of the national, debt. Now, it appeared to him, that not being bills for furnishing the supplies of the year, the House ought not to close its doors against petitions which might be presented against them. This was a parliamentary distinction, which, he believed, had been recognized more than once.
The Speakerobserved, that he believed all resolutions agreed to in a Committee of Ways and Means were, without distinction, considered to be for the supplies of the year. He was not aware of the practicability of making any distinction on the subject.
Lord Miltonstated, that the bills in question were founded on resolutions originally agreed to in a committee of the whole House, but not in a committee of

1135
ways and means; and that it was specifically stated in those resolutions, that it was expedient to make an addition to the sinking fund.
Mr. S. Worthysaid, that as it seemed not to be the disposition of the House to receive these petitions, he gave notice, that when the consolidation bill went into the committee, he would take the sense of the House on the proposed increase in the duty on foreign wool.
Lord Lascellessaid, he should certainly oppose a measure, which threatened to impose a duty on the raw material of a manufacture, which was, at the present moment, peculiarly incapable of sustaining any increased pressure.
Mr. Calcraftdenied that the duties against which the petitions were directed were, fairly speaking, for the supplies of the year. In the first place, they were not sums annually voted. In the next place, the supplies of the year were specific services, for which sums were voted. The duties in question were for the purpose of adding to the sinking fund, and consequently not for the supplies of the year. If, therefore, by any favourable construction, the petitions could be received, he trusted they would not be rejected.
Mr. Robinsonobserved, that whenever a loan had been raised, a sinking fund was provided for, and therefore that the present duties were on a footing precisely similar to the duties which for many years had been imposed, and against the bills for imposing which, the House had never allowed petitions to be presented.
Mr. Dickinson, as the sense of the House appeared to be against receiving the petition, obtained leave to withdraw it.
Lord Miltonsaid, he had two petitions to present against the proposed duty on wool, and notwithstanding the recent decision of the House, he would endeavour to show that they ought to be received. It had been stated by the highest authority in the House that such petitions could not be received. By an entry in the Journals for 1733, it appeared that on the 10th of April a petition was presented by the sheriffs of London, against the excise duties (the bill for imposing which had been read a first time), praying to be heard by themselves or counsel against the second reading of the bill: A debate arose, and after a recurrence to a number of precedents, the result was, that the petition should be allowed to be on the table until
1136
the second reading of the bill, but that the petitioners should not be heard either by themselves or by counsel. A division took place on an amendment moved to the last proposition, when the numbers were 197 to 214. He would feel satisfied if the petitions were at least read; that the House might be in possession of the arguments against the proposed duty. The petitions which he had to present, were the one from Wakefield, the other from Dewsbury.
Mr. Huskissonconceived that the petitions were similar to those which had been already withdrawn. The noble lord might have found, upon a little examination, that the case to which he had alluded was not one precisely in point, as the law respecting the excise was one of regulation, not of an additional tax. That this tax was for the support of the sinking fund, was an erroneous impression; it was like any other tax for the ways and means of the 3year, and he conceived the House could not receive the petition unless they admitted the principle of receiving petitions against proposed taxes.
Mr. Broughamcould not agree with the construction which Mr. Huskisson had put upon the precedent. If the petition of the city of London had been objectionable, as being against a proposed tax, it would not have been ordered to lie upon the table till the second reading. In 1720 a petition was received from the soap-makers and chandlers of Bristol against an increased tax upon soap. This petition was not allowed to lie upon the table, but it was read, and he conceived the same should be adopted in the present case.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, it was better that there should be a rule against receiving petitions in cases like the present, than to receive, and then reject them. In the latter case, it would appear as if the House had decided against the prayer of the petition.
Mr. S. Worthysaid, there was a note in Hatsell to the precedent alluded to by his noble friend, which did away the force of it. On that occasion the Speaker stated, it had been the practice for more than a century to make the city of London an exception from the rule; for when the sheriff of London was allowed to appear at the bar with a petition, the House could not be supposed to know the nature of that petition until they heard it read.
Mr. Broughamcontended, that the precedent in question went farther than the

1137
receiving a petition and allowing it to be read—it allowed it also to lie on the table.
The question, that the said petitions be brought up, was then put and negatived.

COMPLAINT AGAINST "THE TIMES" NEWSPAPER.
Mr. Canningsaid, he felt it his painful duty to call the attention of members to a case in which their privileges were materially involved. The duty was in itself painful, but he felt the more reluctant to discharge it as he himself was personally concerned. No man could be more sensible than he was of the expediency of suffering all that passed within the walls of that House (whether by permission—the propriety of which he would not inquire into; or by connivance, as was the case at present) to be communicated to their constituents and the public at large. He was fully aware of the benefits which were to be derived from it in either way; but he thought the latter was the better mode, as the House would, as they now did, hold within their own hands the power of an immediate check upon any abuse of it. He was convinced that such an indulgence as he alluded to was liable to abuse, and of course to casual error; but whenever a gross and wilful misstatement of what had occurred was sent before the public, it was the duty of the House to interfere, to assert its own rights, and correct the errors into which the public might have been led. For five and twenty years, during which he had had the honour of sitting in that House, he had never complained of any abuse or incorrectness which might have found its way into the reported accounts of what occurred there. He would except one occasion—the last session, when he had to make a complaint of the same newspaper which he was now about to bring to the notice of the House. On that occasion he had felt it his duty to call the attention of the House to a gross misstatement of what had passed within its walls—a misstatement, in which not he particularly, so much as the House in general, was concerned. At the time that he had called the attention of the House to this circumstance, he declined taking any further step upon it, in the hope that the misrepresentation was accidental, and that the notice of it would have operated as a warning against any recurrence of the same nature. He was now sorry to find that that warning was without effect. He was sorry to observe, that a statement
1138
had appeared in the same paper, which the most candid mind must admit was a gross misrepresentation. Indeed, the misrepresentation of which he had to complain was so gross and malignant as to leave no doubt that it was not the effect of mistake. The House would recollect, that on the debate on Tuesday last, an hon. member (Mr. Hume) had delivered an opinion upon the subject then before it. He (Mr. Canning) was not in the House at the time, but he came in before the debate was ended, and finding that, so far from any thing warm or personal having occurred, the House was in a state of langour, he could not of course imagine that any thing referring personally to himself had been uttered, and therefore had no explanation to give; but what was his surprise, when on the following day he found, that in the report of the debate in "The Times" newspaper, the hon. member had been made to say, what he (Mr. C.) should then read to the House. The hon. gentleman, speaking of the economy which should be observed, was made to say—"Instead of that, he saw a military mania prevalent, that cost the country incalculable sums; bands, trapped in scarlet and gold, were daily paraded through the streets, as if to mock the squalid poverty of the lower orders." Here the editor put in a remark of laughter from the ministerial benches.' The report then went on, and the hon. member was made to say, "Ministers might laugh, but let them look at the other side of the picture; let them survey the misery of the poor, industrious wretches at Carlisle; or even of the unhappy beings they meet in our streets, and he believed there would be found but one man among them who would still keep a smile upon his countenance—and that would be a smile of self-congratulation from a right hon. gentleman (Mr. Canning), that by habitually turning into ridicule the sufferings of his fellow-creatures, he had been able to place himself so far above their unhappy condition." To this was added, the words 'continued cheers.' Now, if any hon. member would get up, and declare upon his honour, that if the hon. gentleman had not said the words imputed to him, the report which, he had read was any thing else than a gross and malignant misrepresentation, he would give up any further notice of it. Imagining at the moment that so gross a misrepresentation would not have been

1139
made, he had thought it right to make an inquiry respecting it. The first step which he took was, to apply to the hon. gentleman opposite, and to inquire through a noble lord, whether he had or had not used the language attributed to him. From the noble lord through whom the communication was made, he had received such an answer as the time and the circumstance of the hon. member's being then in attendance on an election committee permitted. He stated, that from the recollection which he retained of what he had said, he was convinced he could not have preferred such a charge; but as he had not seen the paper, he could not answer positively with respect to it. At the desire of the hon. gentleman, he (Mr. Canning) sent the newspaper in question to him; and the result had been, that the hon. gentleman had sent him a most candid, a most honourable, a most satisfactory, and a most gentlemanly explanation of the words which he had used, and had stated in it, that the representations of the newspaper were totally incorrect. In consequence of this disclaimer, he had given the hon. gentleman notice, on Saturday, that he should bring this breach of privilege before the House. The House would see, that as far as he was himself concerned, he could have no satisfaction in bringing before it any thing which related to himself personally: of what came from a respectable source, of what rested upon good authority, he might think it requisite to demand an explanation; but that which originated from a source not respectable, that which rested on such authority as that of the wretch, whoever he might be, who had penned this paragraph, was far below contempt in his estimation. Rut though he was satisfied as far as he himself was personally concerned, he had a duty to discharge towards the House. There might be many members Jess hardened by experience than he was, to attacks of such a nature—men, who would rather bear a misrepresentation in silence, than call the attention of parliament to it; it was in their behalf that he called upon the House to take notice of the libel which had been published against one of its members—a libel, which was the more infamous, because the author of it, instead of putting it forth as his own opinion, put it forth as the opinion of another, and thus attempted to make the name of an hon. member a cover for the slander which he had not himself the
1140
courage to avow. If such a breach of privilege was allowed to go unchecked, it would be in the power of any individual to publish to the world any slander which he might think proper, regarding its members. For, what were the resources to which he could appeal? The courts of law were good for nothing: if he carried it to the Court of King's Bench, he would not be allowed to produce evidence to show whether what had been imputed to the hon. gentleman had been said or not; and although he might gain satisfaction for the act, he might gain it from an innocent person, who had given a true report. As little could the House afford him redress, unless the newspaper was in fault, and unless such an admission were made, as on this occasion had been made by the hon. gentleman. Thus the slandered person was either to acquiesce in the slander, or was to have recourse to that direct personal appeal, which he should not mention in any plainer terms in that House. If this were the case, it would be left in the power of the meanest scribbler who disgraced the press to traduce any two of the most hon. members that adorned parliament by his calumnies, and thus reduce them to that unpleasant alternative to which he had previously alluded. He therefore could not help asking the House, whether it was not their duty to interpose and prevent the occurrence of any such mischief as that which he had contemplated. Every person might not be possessed of the same candour and liberality as the hon. member to whom he had addressed himself; he might have made an appeal to a man not at all deficient in feeling, but who from a principle of pride or of carelessness, might have answered that, when their speeches were once delivered, they knew nothing, and cared nothing about the newspaper reports of them. He could not have collected any evidence on the point from those who heard the obnoxious assertions, because every man to whom he had applied would have known the object for which he was collecting it, and no man who did not possess the very strongest nerves would give such information as would lead two individuals to that extremity which was not to be mentioned. He thought, therefore, that the House were imperiously bound to take such measures as would prevent the recurrence of such a misrepresentation as that of which he now felt it his duty to complain. In

1141
laying the paper which contained it on the table, he was following that line of conduct which his conscience suggested to him to be correct, and was not gratifying any private views or feelings of his own; indeed, for himself, he had nothing to ask; it was for the protection of others rather than of himself—it was for the dignity of the House—it was for the security of its debates, that he pressed the House to take the subject into their most serious consideration. He thought it only fair to inform the House, that there was in the newspaper of that morning an apology or an atonement for the misstatement which had appeared. He would read the paragraph to the House. The right hon. gentleman then read the following paragraph from The Times of yesterday:—"We regret to state, that a considerable error crept into our account of Mr. Hume's speech on bringing up the report of the committee on the finance resolutions on Tuesday evening. In the great mass of matter which must every night be got ready for the press, after the debates in the two Houses are ended, or while they are going on, it is impossible that mistakes should not sometimes occur. We can only say, that it is our most anxious desire to send forth a just and impartial representation of what passes; and whenever we fail of success, such are still the pains we take, that we should hardly have to solicit indulgence upon the plea of incuria fundit; our failure must be laid to the imperfection of our common nature— humana parum cavit natura. Mr. Hume spoke with much feeling and animation of the distresses of the poor, and observing, as we understood by our reporter, a smile upon the ministerial benches, is represented by us as taxing only one right hon. gentleman, Mr. Canning, with indulging in laughter on so serious a subject. That right hon. gentleman, we have since learned was not present. We shall not now repeat the offensive passage for the sake of correcting it: suffice it to say, that Mr. Canning was not attacked as described in our report. We are enabled, from the most authentic source, to lay before our readers the passage which was so misunderstood by our reporter." After he had finished reading it, he resumed.—If the present were a case of omission, or of accidental mistake, he should be the last person in the world to complain of it; but what incuria, what error, or what mistake could lead the author of this calumnious
1142
paragraph to the belief that he (Mr. C.) was present at the debate, and that he had joined in a laugh against the sufferings of the poor? The paragraph of which he complained was a long and not a hastily written paragraph; indeed, it was most artificially constructed, and could not have been the production of a mere moment's consideration: it represented him receiving as sharp a rebuke as could be made, without saying a single word in reply; and depicted him with a smile flickering on his lips, whilst bearing a chastisement, too severe for any being with the feelings of a man to have borne with tranquillity. And yet this was to be represented as a fault of omission, or as an error arising from the imperfection of human nature! That it was a fault of omission or of accident, no man could believe; that it might arise from the imperfections of human nature, he was willing to allow; for he had always counted amongst them malignity and falsehood. So far as himself and the House were concerned, this apology was a greater offence than the original misrepresentation. The House was to be thanked, forsooth, that its debates were so fairly and faithfully given! its gratitude was to be granted, because errors were so seldom admitted! Instead of complaining of them when they occurred, the House was to be indebted to the reporters for their general accuracy; and its members were to have no reason to complain of them, even though they were held up to the ridicule and detestation of the country! He wished to press upon the notice of the House, what had been the effect of this error, this mistake, this imperfection of human nature. The paragraph had first appeared on Wednesday last, and had not been contradicted till this present Monday: in the meantime, every Sunday paper, and every provincial paper, had copied the paragraph, with this lying representation. If this late apology were considered an extenuation instead of an aggravation of the original offence, the House would be abdicating its power, its right, and its duty, of seeing that the communications which were made of its proceedings to the country were fairly and honestly made; that power they had not abdicated—that right, though not insisted on, they still maintained,—and that duty they could never abandon, if it was true, that the privileges which we enjoyed were the privileges of the Commons of England, given to us not as an enjoyment or

1143
a distinction, but as a means where by we might be enabled more fearlessly to withstand the encroachments of the Crown on one hand, and the inroads of popular licentiousness on the other. He had now discharged his duty in laying this case before the House, as also what had been said in extenuation of it. As it related to himself personally, he should not suggest to the House the mode in which they ought to dispose of it; but he trusted they would dispose of it in such a manner as would vindicate the privileges of the House, and secure to themselves those immunities on which the rights and liberties of the country so essentially depend. The right hon. gentleman then sat down; after which the clerk proceeded to read the two paragraphs to which Mr. Canning had called the attention of the House. When the clerk came to the words "continued cheers,"
Mr. Canningsaid, that as to the continued cheers which were said to have taken place, though he had made considerable inquiry, he could not find any individual who had any recollection of them.
After the reading of these papers was concluded, a short pause ensued, which was ended by the rising of
Mr. Hume Mr. Hume, who said, that he would state as concisely as he could, the view which he had taken of the present question. On the night previous to the day on which he had received Mr. Canning's first communication he had been in the House till a very late hour, and as he had occasion to attend an election committee that day at 10 o'clock, he had left his home at 9. This prevented him from paying immediate attention to the right hon. gentleman's communication; but when he did read its contents, he felt convinced that he could not have said any thing which could be construed into a personal attack upon that right hon. gentleman. The remarks which he had made were directed against his majesty's ministers in general, and not against any one of them in particular; what he had said was not said in anger —what he had uttered was uttered without malice, and came directly and sincerely from his heart. He therefore had no hesitation in addressing a letter to the right hon. gentleman, stating, that though he had not seen the newspaper, there was not a single sentence in his speech which could be considered as an attack upon his character. Anxious, however, that no time should be lost before the misrepresentation
1144
was corrected, he wrote to the right hon. gentleman a letter, in which he requested that a copy of the newspaper should be sent to him. The newspaper was accordingly sent; and when he saw the paragraph, he had no hesitation in saying, that it was a gross calumny on the character of the right hon. gentleman, and a strange misrepresentation of what he had himself said. In consequence of this, he wrote a second note to the right hon. gentleman, stating his opinion of the incorrectness of the paragraph, and promising that he would put on paper, as nearly as he could recollect, every word that he had actually said. When he had alluded to the gentlemen opposite, he had expressed a regret that the hon. member for Liverpool was not in his place among them; and he had no hesitation in saying that he had felt that regret, because, irritated as to the puny savings which the right hon. gentleman had said that the opposition side of the House were always recommending, he had intended to have expressed his opinion in stronger terms than he actually did express them regarding the conduct of the right hon. gentleman. It would be recollected, that they had sat for three successive days to the late hours of 2 or 3 in the morning; and this circumstance, joined to other engagements, prevented him from thinking of sending to the editor of "The Times," and desiring him to correct the misrepresentation. As soon as this idea occurred to him, he wrote to the editor, informing him of the calumnious misstatement, and requested him to make an apology for it as public as was possible. The letter was sent by a servant of his own: at the time of his sending it, the editor was out of town; but as soon as he returned, he sent him (Mr. H.) a letter couched in strong terms of regret for the mistake which had occurred, and desiring to explain the circumstances under which it had originated. He had, however, declined to receive him (the editor), be-cause he thought that the best course which he could adopt was, to send him a note, stating, that it was absolutely necessary that he should make an apology, and conveying him a copy of what had actually been said by himself on that day. This the editor did not receive till Sunday, which would account for the apology not appearing till the paper of Monday. The hon. member said, he regretted extremely that any such circumstance should have occurred between the right hon. gentle-

1145
man and himself; for if there was any individual in the House with whom he wished to stand well, it was the right hon. gentleman. The course of their public business brought them much together, and if any thing was to be done between them, it would be transacted better in an amicable than in on unfriendly manner. Since he had been a member of that House, he had paid much attention to the debates which had occurred in it, and to the manner in which those debates had been reported. From observation he could state, that the reports in "The Times" were very fair—in no other instance had he seen any misrepresentation, and he was inclined to think that this was not a wilful mistake, or the effect of any malignant feeling. If he had acceded to the request made by the editor of "The Times," in his letter, the right hon. gentleman might perhaps have received such an explanation as would have satisfied him. By not having had an interview with him, and not having introduced him, as he probably wished, to the right hon. gentleman, he might have deprived him of the opportunity of offering such an exculpation of himself as would have completely satisfied that right hon. gentleman. He sincerely believed, that the misrepresentation complained of must have originated in mistake, and not in a spirit of malignity and falsehood.
Mr. Lushingtonthought that no man could have any hesitation in declaring that this misrepresentation did not originate from accident. With regard to the assertion, that no other misrepresentation had taken place in "The Times" paper, many days had not elapsed since he had had reason to make a complaint of this very editor. He alluded to the misstatements which had been given to the world respecting the case of captain Hanchett, regarding whose character he believed that an hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Bennet), entertained nearly the same conviction as he did himself. He begged to press upon the attention of the House the effect of these misrepresentations. Many of those individuals who were politically opposed to him at Canterbury, were disseminating statements of his case, which they backed with quotations taken from The Times. This was a most foul abuse of the indulgence granted by the House, and in the present case was of such a nature as to demand of the House, to interpose with its authority.
Mr. Wynnsaid, that there was only one course for the House to pursue, and that was to call the publisher and printer to the bar of the House. The publishing of the debates in parliament, whether it was done by its permission or connivance, was of inestimable benefit to the public; but then it was proper that they should be fairly represented, and not converted into an engine to gratify private malice or party purposes. In the present case, he could not see how this misrepresentation was to be attributed to accident; and as he could not, it appeared to him to be precisely one of those cases in which the House was bound to assert the rights which it possessed. The breach of privilege was in the present instance of a complicated nature; the first breach of privilege he need not mention, as it was well known to every member in the House, and had now been overlooked for many years; the next breach of privilege was against the right hon. gentleman opposite, whose character had been calumniated; and the third breach against the right hon. gentleman to whom foul language had been attributed. There was no other course for the House to pursue than to order the printer to appear at its bar to-morrow.
The Speakerthen put the question, that C. Bell be ordered to attend at the bar of the House to-morrow.
Mr. Wynnasked, whether the more usual way of proceeding was not to move a resolution that a breach of privilege had been committed, and then, after this resolution had been carried, to move that the publisher be heard at the bar of the House.
The Speakersaid, that a case had occurred in 1805, where this mode of proceeding had been dispensed with. The printer of the paper had then been called to the bar, and asked whether he was editor of it likewise. There was, indeed, some difference between that case and the present: that case regarded a paragraph which commented upon the conduct of certain members of parliament: this related to the publishing, and the publishing incorrectly, the debates which occurred in this House. One breach of privilege was therefore most undoubtedly committed.
The Speakerthen put the question a second time, that C. Bell do attend the bar of the House to-morrow.
Some hon. members suggested the pro-

1147
priety of making a similar order with regard to the editor of The Times.
Mr. E. Littletonconcurred in this suggestion; as he thought that the paragraph was conceived in malignity, and was engendered in falsehood.
The Speakersaid, that the House would see the awkward situation in which its officers would be placed, if an order should be issued to compel the attendance of the editor, and the officers should not know who the editor was. The House was in the habit of receiving information from its own members, and therefore, if any hon. member knew who the editor was, and would give that information, they were at liberty to receive such information, and to act upon it as should seem best to them. The printer was known, and therefore they could summon him and examine him at their bar.
Mr. Wynnobserved, that the printer and publisher of the paper were the persons whom the law considered liable for every article that appeared in it. The order, compelling the editor's attendance would be in the nature of a general warrant, which it was well known was illegal. Unless, therefore, any gentleman would state who the editor was, the best plan that the House could pursue was, to examine the printer at the bar, and to obtain from him the name of the editor.
Mr. Littletonsuggested, that there was one hon. gentleman in the House who could afford the information which it wished to obtain. It was the hon. gentleman who had carried on a correspondence with the editor.
Mr. Humesaid, that he had written to the editor of The Times generally, and that the letters which he had received from him in return were written in the name of the editor, and dated from The Times office.
Lord Castlereaghobserved, that there could be no doubt at all of the malignity of the publication. He thought that it would be expedient now, as in former cases of this nature, to pass a vote declaring it to be a gross breach of privilege.
Mr. Wynnsaid, that whatever measure the House determined upon adopting, ought to be adopted with deliberation. This paragraph first of all was a breach of privilege; and 2ndly, a most gross and infamous libel. That consideration would come before the notice of the House more properly to-morrow.
Mr. Broughamobserved, that there was
1148
only one opinion and one feeling on the subject; and every one who had heard the clear and able statement of the right hon. gentleman opposite, could not help concluding that this paragraph was a breach of the privilege of the House. As that question was, therefore, already settled, he did not rise to say any thing upon it; though he must entreat the attention of the House before they entered further upon this business. It was very clear that the matter could not stop in its present stage: he did not mean to say that this was an argument against their proceeding further in it, but that this was not the only newspaper in which the most malignant attacks had been made upon honourable members, in contempt of all the privileges of the House. He did not allude now to the specific breach of privilege committed in the publishing of the debates, by which the House, the country, the constitution, and no one part of it more than the executive government, were highly benefitted, but to those gross misrepresentations by way of comment on the debates of the House, which must arise either from the most culpable negligence, or the most abominable malignity. These misstatements were not brought forward in the clumsy mode which was complained of to-night; they were not put by a reporter into the mouth of another, but they were the declared comments of the publisher, who was either guilty of the misrepresentation himself, or else had lent himself most unjustifiably to it. To give instances of this nature would be endless. He should content himself with mentioning one case in which his own character had been attacked, and his meaning misrepresented. After the satisfactory denial in that House by his noble friend, the member for Yorkshire, of the circumstances to which allusion had been made, he took no further notice of the subject; and it gave him satisfaction, because he knew that at that time other gentlemen had grounds to bring forward similar complaints, and which must have been brought forward if he had persevered; if A took notice of one attack, B and C would be under a sort of necessity of following it up with such as had been made upon them. Only a few weeks ago, one of the public papers had most unjustifiably assailed the hon. member for Southwark, and had even endeavoured to expose him to popular violence. What he apprehended was, that if in consequence

1149
of the very just statement of the circumstances of the case by the right hon. gentleman, the House thought fit to proceed further, it might be called upon so frequently to adopt the same steps as to the past. As to the future, it would be their own fault if the editors of newspapers incurred the displeasure of the House. The complaints as to the past would be endless and the result must be an injurious impediment to the free communication of the proceedings of the House to the public. At the same time, he by no means intended to oppose the motion, if it was thought good to press it forward. He entertained as strong an opinion and as warm a feeling upon this subject as any hon. member; he only called their attention to the probable consequences of the course now suggested. Undoubtedly the abuse was gross, and it was necessary that it should be checked; but he thought that more good would perhaps be attained by stopping here than by taking any more severe notice of the matter. If he might presume to offer advice to the House, his advice would be, that it should not go beyond the letter of the example that had been set on a former occasion; if it did, complaints could not be confined to misstatements in reports, but must extend to breaches of privilege in comments upon them.
Mr. Canningagain rose, merely because the hon. member had called upon him for an opinion. When he put the newspaper into the hand of the clerk, he had declared his determination to take no farther part in the discussion. He had discharged a painful duty in bringing the subject forward: he had done so after much deliberation; and whether such conduct were or were not fit, it had been influenced by no wish to gratify personal feelings.
Mr. J. W. Wardobserved, that the course recommended by the hon. member would lead to this inconvenience—that it would open the door to endless attacks of the same unwarrantable kind, that had been made, not only, on his right, hon. friend, but on the hon. and learned gentleman. He referred to the similar complaint made by that hon. gentleman, and to the milder notice that at his suggestion had been taken of it by the House. The hon. gentleman suggested that the same course ought now to be pursued; that further steps should be wisely abstained from; but it was precisely because the
1150
House had acted unwisely upon that occasion, that the House was now troubled with a repetition of the offence. He did not see how the House could allow this attack to pass without some sort of punishment; it ought not to pass wholly unnoticed, unless the House meant it to be understood, that in future all attacks might be made with impunity. He could hardly conceive it possible that the utmost licence of falsehood and malignity could carry the press further in a violation of the privileges exercised by the House. With whatever favour the House might be led to regard the publication of its debates, it was impossible that such an excess of licence could be permitted, and for this plain reason—that it was suspending over the House a power greater than itself: it was, in fact, rendering the press master of the parliament, and of the characters, feelings, and individuals of the persons composing it.
The question was then put and carried, that Mr. C. Bell do attend the House to morrow.

CASH PAYMENTS BILL.
On the order of the day for the third reading of this bill,
Mr. Manningobserved, that he wished to propose a clause which he conceived essential to this bill. The Bank committee had reported, that in order to prepare for the resumption of cash payments, it was necessary to pay to the Bank 10 millions of the debt due to them by government. He had looked over the bill very minutely but could not find a single word which provided for the repayment of this sum. It was necessary, however, that some steps should be taken to this effect. If parliament made it imperative on the Bank to resume payments in bullion at a certain period, and ultimately to pay in specie, they ought to adopt such measures as would enable the Bank to meet the wishes of the House. His object was, to secure the opinion of the House, that the sum of five millions ought to be secured to the Bank, to be paid up at an early period next year. If this clause were adopted the payments would not commence until July, and would not be made up until the 15th of April next year which was more than two months later than the chancellor of the exchequer contemplated. In moving this clause, he was not actuated by any hostile feeling, neither he nor the other directors wished to

1151
throw any impediment in the way of ministers, or to prevent the recommendation of the committee from being carried into effect. All he wished for was, that parliament would secure to the Rank the payment, within a certain period, of five millions due to them by government. The clause he meant to propose was, "That in order to enable the Bank to have a perfect control over its issues of notes, and to enable them to provide for the proposed payments in gold, it was necessary that government should secure the payment of the proposed sum of 5,000,000 l. to be paid in monthly instalments of 500,000 l. commencing on the 15th July next, and to be continued monthly until the 15th of April which would make good the above sum."
Lord Castlereaghrequested of the hon. member to postpone this clause until the chancellor of the exchequer was in his place.
Mr. Ellicesaid, he intended to propose a clause or two which he conceived important to the bill. His object was, to do away the alarm which was excited from the Bank narrowing its issues. If the Bank reduced their issues, merchants could call for gold bars in the course of next year, and would have the option of sending them to the Mint, to be coined into guineas at the rate of 3l. 17 s. 10½d. per ounce. If this was done in order to increase the circulating medium, the money so coined must ultimately find its way into the Bank, the great depot of all large payments. But according to the proposed regulations the Bank could not re issue this money until 1823. The object of the clause he meant to propose was, to leave it at the option of the Bank to pay or exchange their 1l. and 2l. notes in gold, at any intermediate period between those mentioned by the report. If this was adopted, he intended to propose some amendments in the body of the bill. The hon. member then moved the following clause: "Provided also, and be it hereby enacted, that the governor and company of the Bank of England, if they shall see fit, may at any time on or after the 1st of May 1821, pay or exchange the lawful coin of the realm, for the notes of the Bank, payable on demand, any provisions in this act, or in the before recited acts to the contrary not withstand-standing."
Mr. Peelsaid, he could not agree to the clause proposed by the hon. member, as it would have the effect of placing the
||
1152
country in the same situation as it stood in 1816. It would further have the effect of impressing the public that parliament was not quite in earnest in its efforts to resume cash payments. He had no objection to the clause now proposed, as it did not make against the principle of the bill.
Mr. Dennisonobserved, that the great issues of the Bank were occasioned by the wants of an expensive administration, and he thought that measures ought to be taken to place the Bank in a situation to fulfil the conditions imposed on them by parliament.
The clause was agreed to, and added to the bill by way of rider Mr. Manning then proposed his clause.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobjected to it on the ground that it would be improper to tie government up to any specific period when this sum was to be paid to the Bank. The hon. director knew that if the Bank had made advances on the present loan, as they had done on former loans, provision might easily have been made to repay this sum. Of the present loan of 12 millions, 6,000,000 l. was in exchequer bills, and the other 6,000,000 l. was to be made good by monthly payments of 600,000 l. out of which it would be impossible to pay 500,000 l. per month to the Bank. It was intended to take 12,000,000 l. from the sinking fund, but this was to be applied to the current ser-vice of the year. The hon. member was aware, that of this loan, near three millions would be to be paid after April. It was intended that the proposed sum should be paid in the course of this and the next year, but he could not consent to fetter government to a specific mode of payment, which it was more than probable they would be unable to fulfil.
Mr. Ellicewas of opinion, that there was strong reason for binding government on this subject, and thought that whilst' every thing was required from the Bank, nothing was done for them. He admitted, however, that there might be difficulty in making regular payments during the present year. The Bank, he conceived, acted wisely in refusing to make any advances upon the present loan, under the circumstances in which they were now placed.
Mr. J. Martinsuggested, that if the Bank were to sell exchequer bills at those periods when they had just paid the public dividends, their own notes would flow

1153
back, and in some degree enable them to regulate the currency.
Mr. Primrosesupported the clause, on the ground that the House ought to see distinctly that means were adopted for carrying their own resolutions into effect. One of his reasons for voting in favour of increased taxation was, that the Bank would thereby be enabled the more effectually to control its issues.
Mr. Huskissonobserved, that the 5,000,000 l. was not a divided sum. A specific provision had been made for its repayment, and it could not be otherwise appropriated. Although monthly instalments might be inconvenient to the treasury, he had been glad to hear from his right hon. friend, that as far as equitable payments could be effected, that end should be consulted. The supplies and expenditure for the year ended with the year, and the excess never reached beyond the April quarter; the payments from the sinking fund might not be concluded till one quarter after.
Mr. Manningexpressed his disposition to modify his clause, so as to make the payment of the sum alluded to complete by the 1st of May, 1821.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved, that the re-payment of the sum referred to by the hon. member had no immediate connection with the present bill. The sum of five millions, due by government to the Bank, had already been voted in the committee of supply, and that sum would of course appear in the appropriation act, upon the discussion of which it would be competent to the hon. member to bring forward his proposition.
The clause was withdrawn.
Mr. Ellicethen moved, with a view of recording his disapprobation of resuming cash payments by intermediate steps, that the fifth and sixth clauses should be omitted.
Mr. Peelthought it extremely desirable to retain these clauses. The hon. gentle-roan, in arguing on the effect which this measure would have on the value of paper, had taken the maximum of depreciation, and had said that, if you take a bank-note to the Bank, you will receive gold in exchange at the price of 4l. 1s. per ounce. That, however, would be the case during the first period of the resumption only; and if the holder of the note were to keep it in his possession till the final resumption, he would receive gold for it at the Mint price. His principal objection to
1154
the motion was, that it would have the effect of abrogating the resolution which allowed the Bank time for preparation.
Mr. Pearsethought that various causes might arise to affect the exchanges and raise the price of gold, to the serious loss of the Bank. Among these possible causes were to be contemplated foreign loans. Indeed, the impression that a Prussian loan was to be raised in this country was very general. He was certain the conduct of the Bank had always been regulated by a desire to limit their advances, and at the same time a wish to assist government to the utmost of their power. He supported the amendment.
Lord Castlereaghhoped the hon. director would see, that there was nothing in the state of the exchanges, or in the present situation of the country, to render the working of this measure alarming; and that the House ought not to be deterred from adopting it by the contemplation of possible occurrences. He had heard the report of an intended foreign loan, and the result of the inquiries he bad made was a firm conviction that it was unfounded.
The House divided on the question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the bill:" Ayes, 166; Noes, 21. The bill was then passed.

List of the Minority.

Barnet, James

Longman, G.

Boswell, Alex.

Manning, Wm.

Callaghan, Gen.

Marryat, Joseph.

Denison, J. W.

Mellish, Wm.

Douglas, W.

Pearse, John

Dent, John

Robarts, A. W.

Forbes, Charles

Robarts, W. T.

Gordon, Robert

Sinclair, George

Heygate, Ald.

Smith, Samuel

Innes, John

TELLERS.

Irving, John

Ellice, Edward

Lawson, M.

Grant, J. P.

CHARITABLE FOUNDATIONS BILL.
The House having gone into a committee on this Bill,
Lord Castlereaghsaid, that with respect to the general principle of the bill, it was similar to the measure which passed that House last year, and was sent to the House of Peers; but the House would recollect, that the bill was returned much narrowed in its general purview by their lordships, and the inquiries were limited to such charitable foundations only as were connected with the education of the poor. He now submitted a bill for the consideration of the House, which would embrace a more extended object, and

1155
was nearly similar to that which last year passed that House. It would be satisfactory to hon. members to be in possession of the report of those commissioners who had been appointed to inquire into the charitable institutions, previous to any discussion upon this bill, and for that reason he should be very short in his explanation; but he had the satisfaction of informing the House, that prospects had considerably brightened by the success which had attended the labours of the commissioners, aided by the active and distinguished part which had been taken by many honourable members of that House. This report, he had no doubt, would give great satisfaction to the House and to the country, and would show that the inquiries had been made without pain or vexation to any of the parties concerned. Having said so much, he should proceed shortly to detail the provisions of the bill, and should direct his attention to two main points—1st, as to the mode in which the proposed alterations were to be made; and, 2dly (and this was the only branch of the subject upon which he expected any difference of opinion), the exceptions made in favour of certain institutions directed to charitable purposes. As to the commissioners to be appointed, in the former bill the number was eight, who were to be entitled to receive regular salaries, and six who were to execute their office without compensation: there were also by that bill to be three commissioners required to constitute a quorum; and therefore to form three quorums, one of the six unpaid commissioners must have been necessarily added to the eight commissioners who received salaries. The first alteration which he should propose to introduce into the present measure, was relative to the number and power of these commissioners, to multiply the former and to extend the latter. He should propose that the number of paid commissioners should be augmented from eight to ten, and the unpaid commissioners from six to ten. He should further suggest, that two instead of three be a quorum, excepting in the case of a report being made to parliament, and on such an occasion, five at least should be required to draw up the report. As to the payment of the commissioners salaries, he proposed that it should be 1,000 l. a-year; and for this purpose he should move a grant of 10,000 l. for the salaries, and 8,000 l. for contingent expenses. With
1156
respect to the extension of the powers of the commissioners, he suggested that they should be similar to those of the commissioners of army accounts; namely, to authorize them to examine upon oath, and upon refusal, to commit the parties. The power of fining, however, was to be exercised by a higher authority; viz. by the vice-chancellor, the master of the rolls, or a judge of the court of exchequer. A clause had been introduced, the object of which was to enable the commissioners to call upon the attorney-general to proceed in cases of irregularities. This course he had taken in imitation of a plan adopted in a bill which had been introduced by sir S. Romilly; viz. to proceed by petition before the lord chancellor, and he should recommend that both parties should be relieved from the expense of stamps. Another alteration from the measure of last session, which would have the effect of abridging greatly the length of this proceeding, was, to take away the intermediate appeal. As the law now stood, there was an appeal to the lord chancellor, previous to the case going to the House of Lords. This he proposed to take away. By these arrangements he thought the authority of the commissioners would be rendered more effectual, and he conceived that there would be a considerable advantage in enabling them to call in the assistance of the law, with the least possible delay, to correct any irregularities which might occur. He now came to the second head; viz. the exception to particular charitable-institutions; and he begged to say that there was nothing new in the clause he had introduced, as compared with that inserted in the bill of last session, excepting so far as regarded charities created by private voluntary subscriptions. It never was intended to carry the inquiries into such institutions, and, indeed, it would be a most impolitic step; because, independently of its indelicacy, it might have the effect of checking the increase of those most useful establishments. With this single exception, then, he had adopted the clause which had been introduced into the bill of last session. With regard to those charitable institutions which had special visiters, they had also been excepted. Such a clause had been introduced into the former bill, and he conceived that little objection would be made to it. Upon the general propriety of this exception, the more he considered it the

1157
more he was convinced of its necessity; and it was a principle which had always been recognized in every measure of a similar nature to the present. Thus he had shortly given the outline of this bill, and it would be observed, that it embraced a much more extended object than that which had passed the legislature last year. It would have the effect of giving greater activity to the labours of the com-missioners, and of rendering them mild in their measures, and effectual in their purpose.
Mr. Broughamsaid, he should give his decided approbation to the greater part of this measure. Upon a comparison with the bill of last session, the House would readily see his reasons for expressing his cordial acquiescence in the proposals of the noble lord. When he reflected upon the reception which that measure had met with in the other House —when he considered that nearly all the provisions of this unhappy bill had been the object, not of the most measured invective or the least sarcastic ridicule, both in and out of parliament, he was indeed surprised that all these clauses which had thus been indignantly rejected, were now restored, and had the singular felicity of coming recommended to the House by ministers. It was first proposed not only that charitable institutions connected with education should be the subject of inquiry, but that all charities should be equally investigated. "What," it was asked, "inquire into all the charities of the kingdom? Good God, what endless discussion! Why, there is not a village or hamlet without a charity. Confine it to education charities, and there will be some limit; but if it be extended to the whole range without discrimination, God only knows where it will end." Upon these grounds the clauses were rejected, and the bill had been narrowed. A few months, however, had produced a most happy alteration in the minds of those in another place. This led him to advert to one exception which the noble lord had added. A provision was introduced into this bill, "that all charities which had originated or might originate involuntary contribution, should be exempted from the inquiries of the commissioners." If the provision had ended there, it would have been inconsistent, for all charities originated in voluntary contribution. It was therefore added, "or where principally supplied by volun-
1158
tary contribution, and were governed by committees chosen by voluntary contributors." The one part of this provision must be taken together with the other, so that it excepted all charities principally supported by voluntary contribution. Something of this kind was necessary in order to encourage charity. But if such an exeption had been introduced into the bill last year, that extreme subtlety, that ingenuity which knew no bounds, that Jove of objection to which the failure or the former bill had been owing, would have at once rejected it. There was a doubt what "principally" meant. Was it the half? Or, if it exceeded a mere moiety, were the permanent funds not to be inquired into. If 900 l, arose from voluntary contribution, and 300 l. from land; it would be too much to say that the latter ought not to be inquired into. He did not despair of exempting voluntary contributions, and at the same time having permanent funds inquired into. It often happened that charitable institutions originated in the more fleeting resource of annual contributions. In such cases it was too much to say, that because the origin and part of the sources proceeded from annual contribution, the permanent funds should not be inquired into. But if it was possible to avoid damping contributions without this exception, it was safer to leave the exception large than to lose the benefit of voluntary contributions. The next improvement in this bill was the restoration of certain powers to the commissioners. The bill of last year passed through that House without an attempt to refuse those powers; but it had come down from the other House with very grievous mutilations, and with the power only of calling those guilty of malversation before them, and trusting to them for a fair and candid account of their own misconduct. The commissioners had now the power of compelling them to attend. They had not the power of conviction, but they had the power of instituting process. It were better if they had the power of imposing penalty, and the vice-chancellor, the master of the rolls, or the chief baron of exchequer were to fix the amount. Another restored power was, the number of the quorum. Instead of two, there could now be five boards, the number of commissioners being increased from 8 to 10. The last power he would mention was that of instituting process in a court of

1159
equity. This was a great improvement, since a construction was given to the statute in chancery, that no process could be instituted there against trustees whose title came in question. The exception of visited charities was of less importance, as the commissioners had constructed the act to authorize inquiry into all charities where the visitor was a trustee. He bowed to that authority, but if he had not seen that construction upon it, he could have entertained no hopes to that extent. But his objection still remained to the exception of visited charities, which he would state on bringing up the report. He was sanguine that he could persuade the House to remove the exception; but if he could not, he hoped to have a clause adopted to put the visitatorial power in motion, or to ascertain that it was in motion. He would propose another clause to empower the commissioners to make orders in case of gross and palpable malversation, without leaving the remedy to the delays of chancery.
Mr. Bathurstsupported the bill, and recommended that they should rather think of conciliation, than revert to any differences with any other body.
Mr. M. A. Taylorcontended, that if many of the charities which had special visitors were shut out of the operation of the commission, not half the good would be done by the bill that might be done; and instanced the case of Sherborne hospital, in support of his opinion; the master of which hospital, Dr. Bell, derived, on the average, nearly 1,700 l. a year, although he was scarcely ever resident there. He remembered a school of which the late excellent archbishop of Canterbury was visitor, the master of which had actually turned the school room into a billiard room.
After some further discussion, the blanks were filled up, and the House resumed.