HC Deb 25 July 1820 vol 2 cc589-609
Mr. Wetherell

wished that the important subject which he now rose to submit to the House had been placed in abler hands, as it was one that deserved the utmost attention which they could possibly give to it. As the House was already acquainted with the object of his motion, he should commence the observations which he had to make in support of it, by stating that it appeared to him that an individual, whose guilt or innocence was to be ascertained by the passing or the rejection of a bill of pains and penalties, was entitled to the same protection from the high court of parliament, during the investigation of his case, as would be extended to him by the other courts of the country were he to be brought to trial at their bar. Now, he was of opinion, that nobody would dispute, that pending a criminal, or even a civil proceeding in any of the courts of common law, a publication directly or indirectly tending to obstruct that proceeding, was itself, by the common law of England, a criminal offence. He had only to refer to what had occurred within their own recollection, as a proof of this assertion. It happened, however, that the motion which he had to make on this subject had in it this novelty—that no case had as yet occurred, in which, pending an inquiry, on which a bill of pains and penalties, or a bill of attainder, was to be founded, this question had been decided—he meant the question, "whether it was or was not the duty of parliament to take under its protection the person against whom the imputation of guilt was made, and, by so doing, to secure to itself full enjoyment of its own privileges?" Feeling, therefore, as he did, the novelty of the present question, it was not extraordinary that he should entertain some distrust and diffidence regarding the measure to be pursued with the paper which he now held in his hand, and the conductor of which, he was inclined to state, had been guilty of a breach of privilege. Now, when he said this, he felt that it was not for him to recommend the institution of a new precedent, if any doubt existed, regarding its being a breach of privilege. But still he must say, that it was his decided opinion, after giving the matter the best attention, that the paper did contain a most flagrant breach of privilege. The grounds on which he had formed this opinion were, that a bill affecting her majesty was before both Houses of Parliament. And here it was requisite to consider the nature of the proceedings against her majesty:—A message had been sent down by the king to both Houses, referring certain papers to their consideration. Immediately afterwards, a motion was made, in both Houses, to refer those papers to a committee. In the other House, the motion was carried; but in that House the consideration of the question had been adjourned. They next voted an address to her majesty, advising her to enter into negotiation—an address which not only did not impute any guilt to her—not only did not talk of conviction and of punishment—but which rather inferred innocence, and spoke of a reward. It had been presented to her with the same formalities that had been employed on presenting addresses to other queens-consort. In consequence of that address, a negotiation ensued, which did not end in an amicable arrangement. What was the next step taken by that House? A motion was made for the appointment of a committee, to search the Journals of the Lords, and report whether any further proceedings had been taken by their lordships. The result of the inquiries of that committee was, that the report of the Lords, advising proceedings against her majesty, was laid upon their table. This report was, therefore, a document common to both Houses, and showed them, in a cognizable shape, that their lordships had instituted that inquiry which they themselves had not repudiated, but had only suspended. The concluding passage of that report set forth, that "These charges appear to the committee so deeply to affect, not only the honour of the queen, but also the dignity of the Crown and the moral feelings and honour of the country, that, in their opinion, it is indispensable that they should become the subject of a solemn inquiry; which it appears to the committee may be best effected in the course of a legislative proceeding, the necessity of which they cannot but most deeply deplore." He only quoted this to show that there was, in esse, a recognizable parliamentary voucher that this was an inquiry which the legislature were called upon to institute. If he were right upon this point, another would arise out of it; and that was, whether it was not incumbent on the House, in justice to the delinquent who was not to be tried by the forms of law, but by a bill of pains and penalties, to couple, in these anomalous cases, that species of protection to the parliamentary delinquent which was granted by the other courts to all who were tried before them. He would ask, whether, whilst an inquiry was subsisting, the House would suffer an individual, whose case was sub judice, to be run down by paragraphs, libels, and pamphlets, especially when those who wrote them would be punished for doing it if the matter were to be tried before the courts of common law? In point of precedent, he repeated that this was a new case; but in point of mischief it was not so. If a parliamentary inquiry did not protect a person from being run down out of doors, those who instituted it were guilty of a great destitution of public justice. There was a case on record, in which the House had been guilty of thus deserting its duties; and the consequences, all now allowed, had been most lamentable. The case he alluded to was that of lord Strafford. It was not till he had been convicted, by clamour, out of the House, that a bill had been introduced to convict him within. In his remarks on that case, lord Clarendon had lamented that the House had not taken some measures to silence those clamours, which had hunted him down, out of the House, and had prevented him from being tried fairly within it. If they were to allow guilt to be ascribed to the queen in the atrocious manner in which it was done in this paper, and to permit her to be convicted out of doors, before she was tried within, they were not securing to themselves the fair agency of opinion, but were leaving her destitute of that protection to which she was entitled. It might be said, that her case was not like the one to which he had alluded. Perhaps it was not so in all respects; but still the system pursued was the same. He might also be told that the trash in this "Luminary," and in other papers of the same class, was not likely to influence the opinion of any member of that House. The guilt, however, of such trash consisted not only in the actual mischief which it created, but also in the potentiality that it might create some. Without supposing that any man could have the purity of his heart or the clearness of his understanding polluted by such a paragraph, he would still maintain that the intention with which it was written, and the speculation which it was meant to answer, constituted the crime of it. Was he not right in this assertion? He maintained that he was, and that the attainder of Strafford was not the act of a free and independent legislature. They had left that nobleman unprotected, and they all knew the consequences which had then resulted from it. If they left her majesty similarly unprotected, what would become of the purity of that court—the high court of parliament—which, by one of their standing orders, was declared to be the standard of purity to all the other courts in the country? Having stated this, which was his view of the subject, he now submitted it to the knowledge of the House at large. He could not but think that analogy, fairness, and public justice demanded of them to throw the same shield of protection over imputed guilt, until that guilt was proved, which the constitution had thrown over all other culprits. But if they should say that this proposition was not true—or if they should say that it was an inquiry instituted by another branch of the legislature, and that it might be safely left to vindicate its own privileges—or if they should say that the conclusion to which he had arrived had not been fairly drawn from the case of Strafford—then he would present the question to them in another point of view. Nobody could dispute that the publication of such a paragraph as the one in question was a breach of the common law of England; and then, if they did not think it right to institute a new precedent, they could not—nay, he would say, they ought not—to take a way from her majesty the protection of the common law. If they would not protect her by their own authority, they certainly ought not to deprive her of any other protection. It was on occasion of a paragraph somewhat similar to the present that a learned judge, who enjoyed a great reputation whilst he was alive, whose judgment was strong, and whose heart never deviated from the strict rule of right (he meant the late lord Ellenborough), had observed, that to call a prisoner criminal before he was tried, was a most gross perversion of justice. The case to which he alluded was that of "The King v. Fisher." He had stated, after reciting the circumstances of some case, that the criminal was likely to meet the punishment of his guilt. Mr. Flindell had not exactly told them that; but had asked, in words almost too gross to be mentioned, "Shall a woman who is as notoriously devoted to Bacchus as to Venus—shall such a woman as would, if found on our pavement, be committed to Bridewell and whipped—be held up in the light of suffering innocence?" With this writer the forms of trial were even unnecessary. Her majesty was a criminal; there was no trial required; there was to be ipso facto conviction, and then Bridewell and a whipping.—The learned gentleman then proceeded to read the judgment of lord Ellenborough in the case to which he had referred, and in which his lordship had condemned in very strong terms all attempts to pervert the course of justice. The circumstances of that case agreed in every point with the present, except that in the present the necessity of some judicial interference was much greater, as the attack made upon her majesty was in opposition to every doctrine of Christianity, and every feeling of just and honourable pride. He did not intend to overwhelm the House with authorities upon this subject; but he could not help calling its attention to what had been done by lord Hardwicke for an offence which fell far short of the atrocity of the present. That learned judge, when chancellor, had committed an individual for printing a statement of the proceedings in a civil suit before the cause had come on for trial, though he was the only person whose judgment could be perverted by the reading of such a statement. So, too, lord Erskine, who was a great friend to the freedom of the press, had committed an individual for writing an abusive letter regarding the receiver-general of the Court of Chancery. He need not remind his learned friend, the attorney-general, that his predecessors had generally taken under their kind protection every person who had thus attempted to bias the minds of jurors and of judges. He was sure that his learned friend could not have forgot a criminal information which Mr. Perceval had filed, when attorney-general, against the editor of a paper who had stated the circumstances under which an Excise-officer, in the discharge of his duty, had unfortunately killed a man, though he had not asserted in his comments that he ought to be committed to Bridewell and whipped. Mr. Justice Heath had tried that case, and upon the trial would not allow evidence to be produced to prove that the editor in question had published nothing more than was usually done upon such cases. He stated that such accounts were calculated to inflame the people; he did not require proof that it had inflamed any particular individual, but argued upon the abstract potentiality that it might do injury. To produce further authorities upon that head would be to question the notoriety of that which was already too notorious; he should content himself therefore with stating, that the offence with which he charged Mr. Flindell was the branding with criminality a person who was at present untried. He left it to the House to consider what measures they would take to punish the enormous atrocity of which Mr. Flindell had been guilty in asserting that the queen of England ought to be committed to Bridewell, and should be there whipped, unheard, and without a trial. Would they allow it to be said, that an excise-officer was to be protected from all attacks whilst upon his trial; but that the wife of their present, and the niece of their late sovereign was to be exposed to all the base and cowardly attacks, which any scribbler might think it proper to make upon her? He had already stated that there were two ways in which it appeared to him that the House might proceed in this case; they might either consider it as a breach of privilege, and vindicate it as such; or, if they did not think proper to vindicate their authority in this manner, they might punish the author by means of the common-law, against which he trusted that he had shown him to have offended. Under these circumstances, and with much distrust and diffidence in his opinions, he should sit down, in. confident expectation that the House would inflict some punishment or other upon the author of this atrocious paragraph. Previously to taking any other steps, he should move that the paper in question, "Flindell's Western Luminary," should be laid upon the table.

The paper was accordingly laid upon the table.

The Speaker

then asked Mr. Wetherell, whether he meant to complain of the paper as guilty of a breach of privilege, or to move that the attorney-general be directed to prosecute the editor of it for the passage reflecting on the queen?

Mr. Wetherell

replied, that he should first move that it be taken notice of as a breach of privilege. If he failed in that motion, he would then move that the attorney-general be ordered to prosecute the editor of the paper.

The Speaker then desired Mr. Wetherell to score under the lines which he thought to contain the breach of privilege. Mr. Wetherell did so; after which the paper was put in, and the paragraph, which we have inserted, was read.

Mr. Wetherell

wished the whole of the article, of which that paragraph formed a part, to be likewise read, in order that the House might judge better of its malignity from knowing the context.

The clerk then proceeded to read the article until he came to the words of the libel, when Mr. Tierney thought, that enough had then been read for the House to understand the nature of it. Mr. Wetherell acquiesced, and said that, under such circumstances, he would move, "That (it appearing to this House, that an inquiry is now pending in the House of Lords into the conduct of the Queen, which may become the subject of Pains and Penalties, or other proceedings against her in this House) the said paper is a breach of the privileges of this House."

Sir M. Cholmeley

seconded the motion. He said, that the slanders which were disseminated by means of the licentious press of the country were certainly such as went to deprive the two Houses of any thing like freedom of judgment. If the press were to form the judgment of the country on this important question, it might happen that the judgment of the two Houses of Parliament might not be satisfactory to it, and in that case the most dreadful consequences might be anticipated. He therefore gladly seconded this motion, and trusted that the effect of it would be not only to deter the editor of the paper complained of from pursuing a similar conduct, but to put down the efforts of the licentious press throughout the country.

Lord Castlereagh

observed, that nothing could be more painful to a well regulated mind than to observe the extreme length to which the press had gone in discussions on this subject. Instead of presenting the country to the view of foreign nations, as a well organized state, obedient and amenable to the laws, which had been its character in all former times, it had presented it to their view as an angry and disturbed community, most adverse to good order, and remote from civilization. There could not, however, be two opinions upon the article in "Flindell's Western Luminary," which had just been complained of; and, whatever observations he might have to make upon the course which the hon. and learned gentleman had pursued, he could assure him that no man could feel more indignation than he felt at the article in question, and indeed at the general manner in which the whole press of this country had disgraced itself on this question. There could be no doubt that the paragraph to which their attention had been called, was a gross libel; and the only doubt which could exist was as to the course to be pursued with respect to it, and the measures which it would be most prudent to take, in order to punish its author. The libel, he observed, was of very recent date; but still, recent as it was, it had attracted the notice of his majesty's attorney-general. In the conflict of libels which now issued daily from the press, it was not within the power of his hon. and learned friend to repress all which seemed deserving of punishment. But the laws were open to all, and if his majesty's law-officers had neglected this libel, her majesty's law-servants would still have retained the right of prosecuting for it; and, therefore, the hon. and learned member would allow him to say, that he had not done right in observing, that because the attorney-general had not prosecuted this libeller, there were no other means of obtaining redress than by bringing it before parliament. The learned gentleman had stated, that the House was called upon to take this matter up as a breach of privilege, because a bill might come down to the House from another place, and investigation be rendered necessary; but he had failed to show that this libel was so connected with the proceedings, as to render it necessary that the House should vindicate its privileges, by recurring to a measure of which some members doubted the propriety under any circumstances whatever. He trusted that in making these observations he should not be considered as vindicating the publication in question. He disclaimed any such intention, and at the same time confessed that he should have been sorry had it been passed over incomplete silence. The hon. and learned gentleman had, however, placed the House in a very painful situation, by the course which he had taken; because, after what he had done, it would be injurious to the interests of public justice, not to notice this publication by some mark of their indignation. Before the learned gentleman had called the attention of parliament to it, it would not have been derogatory from his character for impartiality to have considered whether there were not other bodies in the state, and other parties in this suit, equally menaced as the illustrious lady on whose behalf he had thought it requisite to bring forward this motion. If he had read any of the ordinary prints of the day, he would have found, not only in one, but in many of them, shameful libels against those who were to be the judges, and those who were to bear evidence in this investigation. The House would allow that it would not only be fatal to the interests of justice, but also to those of morality, if witnesses were not placed under the protection and safeguard of the law. The hon. and learned gentleman would not deny this: and yet, if he could see the witnesses who had arrived in this country run down by libels, and brought into danger of their lives by tumultuous mobs excited by those libels, without complaining of those outrages as tending to pervert the course of justice, he must look at them with a very different eye from that with which he (lord C.) contemplated them. If they were to exercise their authority in vindicating their privileges, and if their privileges were supposed to be infringed by any attempt to pervert public justice, then must they exercise those privileges with an even hand—then must they take care that not one interest only was protected, and that the witnesses and the court should not be held up to the public as fit objects for assassination. He could have wished that this publication had been left either to the law-officers of the king, or to those of the queen; but if it was to be taken up, he could have wished it had been done without calling the attention of the House to the disgusting spectacle which the press of England now exhibited, disseminating as it did the most atrocious and unprincipled doctrines. Men in official stations had not, in general, time to look into the diurnal prints, or to rake together the faulty passages which they might contain; but they might be driven to do it by individuals looking with a jealous eye for objectionable passages in the publications which support their measures. The hon. and learned gentleman would have acted with more fairness and impartiality had he looked into the publications of both parties, and not confined his view to those of one side only. By doing so, he would have found many passages containing a greater infringement of their privileges than that of which he now complained. The legal arguments which he had just used might have done much, and he (lord C.) had no doubt had done much, to convince the House how improper and also how illegal any publications were which had a tendency to pervert public justice. If the learned gentleman had been desirous of applying those arguments without respect of parties, he might have found an instance to which they would have applied more forcibly than that to which he ad directed them. He might have found a case in which the jurisprudence of parliament had been most openly and daringly attacked. He would read the paragraph to which he was referring to the House, not with any view of founding a complaint upon it, but of showing how much the press of this country had disgraced itself in treating this subject. In the last number of the "Examiner" was the following paragraph:— This is what a true Commons House would have done; but when that House, for the main part, is composed of venal boroughmongers, grasping placemen, greedy adventurers, and aspiring title-hunters, or the representatives of such worthies,—a body, in short, containing a far greater portion of public criminals than public guardians—what can be expected from it, but just what we have seen it so readily perform? This was as direct an attack as could be made on the House of Commons, as part of the high court of parliament. If the Lords formed a part of the tribunal, so also did they; and therefore this paragraph was quite as daring a breach of privilege, even upon the hon. and learned gentleman's own showing, as that now complained of. Was this, however, a solitary attack upon the manner in which the high court of parliament was formed? By no means. The "Republican," in his last number, said— We have very little hopes that the Divorce bill will be rejected in such a parliament as the present, because we know, and have seen, that they are sufficiently profligate and servile to act against the clearest testimony of innocence and right. Still this will matter nothing; the king and parliament must wipe off the disgrace which has so long hung about themselves before they can disgrace the queen in the public mind. The more she suffers, the more will she be endeared to the nation. There never was in England a monarch more suspected and despised, nor a parliament more notoriously profligate, than at present. Was it not that they hold the purse-strings of the nation, they would be kicked out of all power in a few hours, and fairly swept out of the country. At present their doom is sealed, and the herald approaching with it. In another place the members who were to compose this tribunal were compared to the noisy inmates of a brothel: but not only was the utmost licentiousness displayed by the press upon this question, but even upon others. Speaking of monarchical governments, this is their language:—

The earth has groaned under the curse of monarchical governments much too long. Civilization has struggled against it almost in vain; and Nature herself seemed almost to despair of shaking it off. But the monarchical form of government is like every other vice—it will destroy itself in the course of time, even if no opposition be made to it. Their mode of discussing religious topics was not less disgraceful; and the noble lord proceeded to prove that assertion by reading another extract from one of the publications which he held in his band. From these extracts, taken almost at random from the various publications of the day, it was clear that the licentiousness of the press was at present truly deplorable; and was so extensively prevalent, that if it was to be checked by the exercise of the privileges of that House, it could not be by the exercise of them in the confined and limited manner which the hon. and learned gentleman had proposed. If it was necessary to exert them on behalf of the queen, it was no less necessary to exert them in behalf of her judges, and those who were to bear evidence before them; and nothing would give him more pain—for nothing could be more disgraceful to the House of Commons—than to see them turn a deaf ear to all solicitations for interference except they came from a particular quarter. If the House were to determine to prosecute all publications of a certain class, he should certainly feel it his duty to move that a sweeping injunction should be given to the attorney-general to prosecute the offensive publications of every class: not that he meant to insinuate that his hon. and learned friend, the attorney-general, would not do so without such an injunction; but that he thought one party should not be allowed to escape scot-free whilst another was punished. Before he concluded he could not help observing that the complaint now made was rather premature. The paper in question was of very recent date; no proceedings could be taken against it till after the long vacation, and therefore it was not fair to infer that government were insensible of the malignity of this libel, because no steps had yet been taken to punish it. He must again repeat, that if the attainment of justice was the only object which the hon. and learned gentleman had in view, prosecutions ought to be instituted against the writers on both sides of this question. The House could not express its indignation on one particular case, and be silent upon all others; and he therefore felt it his duty to state, that if the learned gentleman persisted in pressing his motion upon this particular paper, he should hand in to the clerk those papers from which he had read so many extracts.

Dr. Lushington

said, that he felt it his duty to state, why he had not come before the House with some specific complaint regarding this atrocious paragraph. The paper in question had been put into his hand some days ago by an hon. friend, who had directed his attention to it—and he had also received information of it from other quarters. On reading it, it excited such indignation in his mind, that he determined to give it his most particular attention. But when he considered that the paper in question was in all probability an obscure country paper, with little or no circulation, and that it would be nothing to repress its malice unless that of a part of the metropolitan press was also checked, it appeared to him to be inconsistent with the dignity of the queen to take any notice of this "Western Luminary." He recollected also, that when his noble friend, the member for Aylesbury, had brought the Morning Post and the Courier before the notice of the House (the first for stating that the queen ought to suffer, it mattered little whether as a criminal or a martyr; and the latter for inserting calumnies against her majesty almost as atrocious as that on which they were then debating), little indignation appeared to be excited within the walls of that House. When he considered, too, that these papers, as also others which generally supported the measures of government, and which were supposed to be, in a certain degree, under its influence, were suffered to go at large with every species of libel in them which could disgrace her majesty or injure her cause, it appeared of little consequence to him whether the "Western Luminary" met the punishment it deserved or not. Indeed, he thought it better to let the writer of that paltry paper, in his greedy anxiety after base lucre, to die in the oblivion to which his demerits were certain to consign him, rather than to call him into notoriety by any efforts which he might make to punish him. Had he, however, thought that, by attacking that reptile, he could have silenced the malignity of other scribblers, he would boldly confess, that, unpleasant as it would have been to him, to call down the vengeance of the laws on the public press, he certainly would have attacked him. His hon. and learned friend had stated, that the offence of that individual consisted in branding her majesty with criminality before she had been brought to trial. He agreed with him fully upon that point; but had her majesty had no guilt imputed to her, no criminality alleged against her, without a trial and before conviction, except in the public papers? Would she now go to her trial in the same predicament and under the same advantages with which any other individual would go to it? No: she had already been treated by the government as if she had been convicted—she had been deprived by its orders of all the honours due to her rank and sex—she had been disgraced in every way which their ingenuity could invent: they had erased her name from the Liturgy, whilst her trial was pending, without informing her what were the charges of which she was accused, without telling her who were the persons who took it upon themselves to accuse her, without confronting her with those who were said to be the witnesses of her shame, without giving her an opportunity of refuting their testimony, and without permitting her to speak in her defence. Under these circumstances, he could not help asking the House what opinion they would have formed of his judgment, if, after all that had thus occurred, he had called upon the House to take any notice either of the Post, the Courier, or even of Flindell's Western Luminary? True it was that her majesty had been most shamefully calumniated—true it was that her case had been most unwarrantably prejudiced; but it was not by any of the paltry publications of the day, but by those which exercised a much more powerful and extensive influence. Such was the view which he had taken of this subject, and such as it was, he had submitted it to her majesty, who fully concurred in the propriety of it. With regard to the press in general, he had always considered that any attempt to restrain it must be attended by great mischief. Whenever he had heard accusations preferred against it, he had always said that, subject as it was in its licentiousness to do great harm, it was still always productive of greater advantages; and that, when once attempts were made to fetter it, there could be no telling where those attempts might end; for without a press entirely and absolutely free, it was impossible that the liberties of this or any other country could long exist in safety. Whilst he was thus stating his opinion of the public press, he felt it necessary to add, that he would not suffer such publications as those which the noble lord opposite had read to them to go unpunished. He would leave it, however, to his majesty's law-officers, acting under the responsibility which attached to their stations, to do their duty in regard to them; and would not leave it to any individual who might think fit to prosecute them without being under that responsibility which they were, and without having the same means of obtaining accurate information. Every thing, however, must be completely altered before her majesty should ever, by his advice, resort for protection to the lower courts, when she ought to be placed under the protection of the highest. If government had protected her majesty up to the time of trial, and had not treated her as guilty until she had been regularly proved so, the case would have been very different. He agreed with the noble lord as to the propriety of protecting all the witnesses from insult, on which ever side they might be; and could see nothing but disgrace and infamy attaching to the country, if the witnesses who came to it were to be in perpetual danger of their lives, and were not allowed to give their evidence free from any bias or embarrassment whatsoever. He would take that opportunity of informing the House and the country, that her majesty had not read any publications of the nature alluded to by the noble lord, and that she would not read any of them either before or during the trial. If the law officers of the Crown were determined to fix upon any publications of that class for prosecution, he hoped that they would not be of that description which had been selected two or three years ago. He alluded to some prosecutions against the Morning Chronicle and other papers, in which so much doubt existed as to the offence, that acquittals necessarily followed. Prosecutions against the press ought never to be instituted except in extreme cases, and where the obtaining of a conviction was almost rendered a moral certainty.

The Attorney General

wished to say a few words, as some misconduct or neglect of duty on his part appeared to be imputed. He thought it a little singular that the hon. and learned mover, should have selected from the numerous libels with which the press had teemed, that which he had brought under the consideration of the House; as it was one so recently published that no opportunity had been given to the law officers of the Crown even to consider whether they should commence proceedings against it. If the hon. and learned gentleman thought this so gross a libel that no time was to be lost in bringing it before the House, he was surprised that the hon. and learned gentleman had overlooked not only the publications from which his noble friend had read extracts, but various other publications, which for the last three or four weeks, had been indulging in the grossest reflections on the conduct both of that and of the other House of Parliament. With respect, however, to the main question before the House, it ought to be recollected, that no ex officio information could be filed by the attorney-general against any of those publications until the ensuing term; and therefore, still thinking that the hon. and learned gentleman might have given him credit by believing that his attention had been directed towards the various libels with which the public press had been inundated since the commencement of the unfortunate discussion in question; yet, if the hon. and learned gentleman's object was, to call to account those, who, by their conduct, were likely to impede the course of justice, by biassing the conduct of parliament, he was afraid that that object would be tardily accomplished, since the prosecution of this libel, which he allowed attacked the conduct of her majesty in terms which must excite general disgust and reprehension, could not be commenced until Michaelmas term. At the same time, he was perfectly aware that the tardiness of the punishment would be no excuse for him; and that there were many cases, as well as that particular one, in which it would be his duty to institute criminal proceedings. He perfectly agreed with the hon. and learned gentleman who had just sat down, that any attorney-general was wrong who commenced a prosecution for libel, without a moral conviction in his own mind that he was entitled to and should obtain a verdict. It was unpleasant to speak of himself, but he appealed to the hon. and learned gentleman, whether, on a review of the prosecutions of that nature which he had instituted since his entrance on office, there was a single instance in which he had not obtained a conviction. He took no merit for that. Unfortunately, the present state of the public press was such, that if he had instituted more prosecutions, he had little doubt that he should have obtained more convictions. But he mentioned this to show that he had been guided by the hon. and learned gentleman's rule; namely, never to commence any such proceeding unless he believed in his conscience that he should obtain a verdict. The hon. and learned gentleman, however, not choosing to confine himself to the question before the House, had, as on former occasions, attempted at the close of the session, to reiterate those accusations against his majesty's government which he had so freely made during its progress. The hon. and learned gentleman had said, that her majesty having been treated as a convicted person by his majesty's government, could not expect any redress for her wrongs in that quarter. It was very painful to him (the attorney -general) to talk on this subject. He had more than once deprecated the introduction of it. But he thought that the question was not fairly treated by the hon. and learned gentleman. The hon. and learned gentleman, without any foundation, attempted to raise a prejudice (which must have its effects, not only in that House, but out of doors) against his ma- jesty's ministers, who, in the discharge of the painful duty which had devolved upon them, had been reluctantly compelled to take the step in which the proceeding at present pending in the other House of Parliament originated. Again, the hon. and learned gentleman had adverted to the omission of her majesty's name in the Liturgy. For himself, he was satisfied that whatever question might arise as to the expediency or inexpediency of that step, in point of law it was completely justifiable. But what would have been said if his majesty's ministers had advised the insertion of her majesty's name in the Liturgy? It appeared that a most serious charge against her majesty had been communicated to his majesty's government, supported by evidence which it was impossible for them to overlook. It was said, that by the omission of her majesty's name, government had pronounced a sentence of condemnation on her majesty. This was a groundless assertion. But, if his majesty's ministers had advised the insertion of her majesty's name in the Liturgy, how could they, with any consistency, have brought down the royal message, or have been accessary to the proceeding in progress in the other House of Parliament? He denied that there had been any want of respect on the part of his majesty's government towards the queen. Any apparent disrespect was attributable entirely to her majesty's own conduct. He confessed, that he thought the course pursued in that House by the hon. and learned gentleman, though a very excellent course for the advocate of her majesty, whose business it was to make the most of every thing for his client, was by no means a proper course for a member of parliament. He thought that the less that was said upon the whole subject the better, in order that the House might keep their minds free from bias, and be qualified to pronounce with impartiality on the momentous question, if it should come before them. All attempts to depreciate the character of the witnesses in this great question—to presume that they were false and perjured, and that no truth could be expected from them—were amenable to the law, and, on whichever side they were made, ought to be punished. But that House ought to be extremely cautious not to lend themselves to the popular feeling—a feeling excited, not for the purpose of running down her majesty, but to prejudge the case the other way. Although he condemned the libel now in question as much as any man, yet in point of numbers and industry in this metropolis, there was no comparison between those whose libels were of that tendency and those who called themselves her majesty's friends, but who, under that hypocritical mask, were actively endeavouring to undermine the government, and to effect that which they had long had in view—a revolution. No man could walk the streets of London without seeing the infamous placards from such persons on every wall. But, had the hon. and learned gentleman ever seen any placard of a contrary character, attempting to prejudice her majesty's cause, or to brand its supporters with infamy? Perhaps there never was a period when the duties of the attorney-general were so heavy as at the present moment; and of all those duties none occupied his attention more than the state of the public press. He lamented to say, that although it would be indispensable to institute numerous prosecutions, he was apprehensive that the arm of the law could not sufficiently restrain the licence of the press. He felt as much interested as the hon. and learned gentleman could do for the preservation of that inestimable blessing, the liberty of the press; but he was persuaded that no man who read the infamous publications to which he alluded, would say that to bring their authors into a court of justice would be to attack the liberty of the press. The existing licentiousness of the press was greater than it had been in any former period of our history. He was sorry that it fell to his lot to endeavour to repress it. He trusted that he should not be considered to have been remiss in the discharge of his duty, because he had not yet taken notice of a publication that appeared only last week. The perusal of the gross and infamous libels which appeared, day after day, and week after week, would occupy the whole of the time of the attorney-general. At the same time, he must not sleep on his post; for remissness was as much to be deprecated as an injurious activity. He confessed, that with all the hon. and learned mover's ingenuity and talent, he was at a loss to discover by what link in the hon. and learned gentleman's reasoning he made the immediate publication in question a breach of privilege. As to the other object of the hon. and learned gentleman's proposition, namely, the instruction to the attorney- general to prosecute, it would not become him, having the honour to hold that office, to say one word.

Mr. Tierney

declared his determination to reserve his further opinions on the great question respecting her majesty, until it should come regularly before the House. He would therefore confine himself strictly to the motion. He confessed that he could not well understand how his hon. and learned friend could make the libel in question a breach of the privileges of the House. At least, the argument by which his hon. and learned friend had endeavoured to do so, appeared to him to be too refined. Because the House of Commons knew that the House of Lords had entertained a bill which respected her majesty, and because that bill was a parliamentary proceeding, and because the House of Commons was a branch of parliament, therefore the libel in question was a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons. Now, it should be remembered, that what that House knew of the proceedings in the House of Lords, was not by a communication from that House, but merely from an examination of the Lords' Journals. The bill might never come to the House of Commons. If the publication in question was really a breach of privilege, it ought to be taken notice of by the House of Lords rather than by the House of Commons. The next question was, whether, if it was declared to be a breach of privilege, the attorney-general should be instructed to prosecute Now, to such a proceeding, he conceived there were many objections. It was odious to send a man to trial with the weight of the opinion of the House of Commons against him. But even if prosecution by the attorney-general were the fit course, it was for the House of Lords to pursue it, and not the House of Commons. Under all the circumstances of the case, he strongly recommended to his hon. and learned friend to withdraw his motion.

Lord A. Hamilton

denied that when he or the hon. and learned gentleman said any thing in that House, in disparagement of the conduct of ministers towards her majesty, it was with the view of inflaming any one either in or out of doors. What they did was merely to recapitulate that conduct. If such a recapitulation had the effect of inflaming, it was attributable to the conduct itself, and not to him. It appeared to him that the attorney-general had been unfortunate in his illustration res- pecting the omission of her majesty's name in the Liturgy. The learned gentleman said, that if ministers had advised the continuance of her majesty's name in the Liturgy, they could not consistently have sanctioned the charges against her. He thought it was quite erroneous to say that a charge could not with consistency be made against any one who, until the time of the charge, had been treated as innocent. But had ministers done nothing else which had the same effect that the learned gentleman supposed would have resulted from the insertion of her majesty's name in the Liturgy? Was not the offer of 50.000l. a year as inconsistent with the subsequent charge of criminality, as the insertion of her majesty's name in the Liturgy would have been? And, besides, there was something mysterious in striking her majesty's name out of the Liturgy; for it was stated in the papers on the table of the House not to have been done in consequence of the intended proceedings against her majesty. To the declaration of the hon. and learned gentleman, that there were persons actively engaged in converting the temporary occurrences of the present day to purposes of lasting mischief, he would add, that those persons had the most valuable coadjutors in his majesty's ministers; for certainly never was a more injurious, impolitic, and unjust course pursued by any government, than that of arming one branch of the royal family against another, and teaching the public that the triumph of the one could be obtained only by the disgrace of the other. As to the libel in question, it was so gross, so injurious, so beneath any thing that could emanate from a man of liberal education, that, in his opinion, it could be detrimental only to its author.

Mr. Maxwell

deprecated the conduct pursued by ministers towards the queen; but however improper that might have been, he could not allow such libels as those that had been lately circulated, to continue to be so circulated any longer with impunity.

Mr. Wetherell

said, that as the noble lord and the hon. and learned gentleman had both intimated that the publication in question would become the subject of prosecution, his object was answered, and he felt great satisfaction that it was so. The House might therefore dispose of his motion as they thought fit. He could not help observing, that the noble lord had not commented on his con- duct with his usual amenity, when he observed that he had not proceeded diligently and accurately on this subject. The noble lord had charged him with a kind of neglect in not having brought forward similar motions against "The Examiner" and other publications. It seemed, however, that the noble lord's own attorney-general had not read those publications. How, then was he (Mr. W.) to be expected to submit them to the consideration of the House? Was he to be the noble lord's shadow or faggot? He was in no such situation. It was enough for him that he had brought under the notice of the House one publication on which an unanimous opinion had been pronounced, that it was a fit subject for prosecution, and which it was intended to prosecute. With the leave of the House he would withdraw the motion.

The motion was accordingly withdrawn.