HC Deb 11 May 1821 vol 5 cc656-81

On the motion of Mr. Bennet, the adjourned debate on the motion "The Mr. Attorney-general be directed to prosecute Henry Fox Cooper, William Shackle, Thomas Arrowsmith, and Robert Thomas Weaver, for a false and scandalous libel on the hon. Grey Bennet, a member of this House, contained in a paper intituled, 'John Bull,' dated Sunday, May 6, 1821,' being resumed,

Mr. Scarlett

rose. He began by assuring his hon. friend that, in dissenting from the motion which he had submitted to the House, it was not because he lightly estimated the attack which had been made upon his character. That character he well knew, and no man could estimate the character of another more highly than he did that of his hon. friend; but there were various objections which he had to the mode of proceeding pointed out by his hon. friend. His first was, that it would not be in accordance with strict justice, first to extract evidence from parties which might afterwards be urged against them in a court of justice; and he also objected to it, because he did not think that the House ought to order prosecution in that way, in a case which ought not so much to be considered an attack on an-individual member, as a violation of the privileges of the House itself. Now, he would not be understood as undervaluing the privileges of the House, if he did not use them on light occasions. It appeared to him, that the true ground on which this question ought to rest, was that of breach of the privileges of the House, by the publication of what passed there, or what was alleged to have passed there, with comments, made with the intention of injuring the character of an hon. member. It was not necessary for him to say that the debates of the House were not published with its consent; they were, however, suffered to be sent before the public, and, in his mind, that permission was attended with great public utility; for he believed that faithful reports of what took place in that House were attended with the greatest advantages to the country, to Europe in general, and to the House itself, and therefore he never would object to the continuance of a practice which had prevailed, as he conceived, with such good effect, for many years before the close of the last century. But then the House should, as it did, hold in its hands the immediate power of correcting any abuse of such permission, by unfair reports, but most of all by wilful misstatements. If the House found that an erroneous report was sent forth with a view to injure the character of any member, or of the House itself, then he conceived it would be justified in visiting the party so acting with the severest punishment; but then he thought it should be for the breach of privilege with such bad intention, and not for a libel on the House. Such libels were generally made so by construction, and he was, and ever should be, an enemy to constructive libel. But, being thus a breach of privilege, the only question would be, in what way should the party be punished? Now, he considered that this was the legitimate ground on which to view the case of the persons who had been called to the bar of the House on the present occasion. What was the nature of the article complained of? It insinuated that an hon. member of that House had been terrified into an apology. He had known his hon. friend for years; and those who knew him longer, or who knew him at all, would join with him in saying, that nothing could be a more atrocious attack on his character than such an insinuation. It might fall to any man in the heat of debate to be misreported; and, from the imperfect manner in which what was said was sometimes given, to have expressions attributed to him which he never used, nor intended to use. Now, if such were the case, and if those expressions were calculated to give pain to any individual, so far from its being dishonourable to disavow them, he would hold it to be the duty of a gentleman, immediately on his becoming acquainted with the fact, to remove that pain by such disavowal of what had been done by the malice or ignorance of a third party. He stated this broadly—true honour or true courage ought not to be afraid of doing that which became a gentleman. That such: was the conduct of his honourable friend was acknowledged by all; but that the reverse was insinuated by the paper in question no person could deny; and therefore he considered the paragraph as a most gross and wilful attack on his hon. friend, and a breach of the privileges of that House. Indeed, he considered that the House ought to feel obliged to his hon. friend for having brought the matter forward. He had read the paper since this question came before them, for he had not seen it previously; and he seas fully satisfied that some means ought to be resorted to, to find out the author of the article. He was the more anxious on this subject, because reports had gone abroad, and were very generally believed, that persons high in rank, and worthy (if such persons could be at all so considered) of a seat in the councils of the nation, were lending to this publication their full countenance and support. When such, then, was the belief abroad, he thought his hon. friend was doing but justice to the House itself, to give it an opportunity of refuting the assertion, if it could be refuted, that such men held a seat amongst them. After an examination, and the hearing of the evidence, such as it was, they had a person before them who avowed himself the author of the article in question. Upon that avowal they were bound to go; and indeed, for his own part, he could scarcely bring himself to believe that any man who had the honour of a seat in that House could be the author of such an article. Under all the circumstances of the case, he could not think that it was one which the attorney-general ought to be directed to prosecute; for he could not consider it as an attack on the House, but as a breach of privilege, by publishing a debate with improper motives. Though he thus differed from his hon. friend he was not prepared to submit any other motion as an amendment. He should sincerely wish that his hon. friend would withdraw his motion; if he persisted in it, he, however reluctantly, must feel it is duty to oppose it.

Mr. Bennet

said, that he had felt it his duty to bring the subject before the House, first in justice to his own character; and next, with the view, if possible, of finding out the author. The House having discussed the matter, and having voted the article a scandalous libel, he thought he should best discharge his duty by giving the parties an opportunity of defending themselves; which they would have, if the matter went to trial, but which they could not enjoy if another course was pursued. The view which he took of the matter might be erroneous, but it was a conscientious one; at the same time, he was not insensible to the objections to such a mode of proceeding. He knew that the House might allow the evidence taken before them to be adduced in a court of Jaw, and that they might withhold it if they pleased; but still he knew it would be an advantage to the prosecutor to have it on his brief. Personal feelings he could have none against the parties who had appeared at the bar nor was he disposed to press any thing against the wish of the House: he would therefore withdraw the motion he bad made, leaving it to the House to dispose of the matter as it pleased.

Sir R. Fergusson

said, he was glad that his hon. friend had withdrawn his motion. For his own part, he would not wish to punish any of the individuals who had appeared at their bar; and if any hon. member should make a motion to that effect, he should feel it his duty to oppose it. At the same time, he was satisfied that his hon. friend was perfectly right, in having brought the matter before the House. He had done so to justify his character; and, though that was unnecessary to all who knew him, yet no one would deny that a man must feel extremely hurt at having his honour and his courage called in question. As to the persons who had been summoned to the bar of the House, and whose prevarications the House had heard, no one could believe a word of the account they gave. Their characters were exposed, and sent forth to the public; and it was his opinion, that that would prove their punishment, for the good and thinking part of the community would believe what they should write, in future, to be as false as what they had stated in that House. His only wish was, that the real author of the article in question could be discovered. It was, indeed, a new era in the history of this country to see a paper flourish which had been started to blast the character of virtuous and innocent women, and it was an era still more new to find such a paper supported as it had been. He wished to God he could believe that the worthless men who had appeared at their bar were the real authors of the paragraph complained of, and of others which had appeared in that paper; but there were certain articles inserted in it which led him to believe that they could not be the authors, but that the authors were some base and cowardly assassins, who, from birth and other adventitious circumstances, mingled in that society to which they were a disgrace. He trusted in God that they would yet be found out. He believed that they would be so; and, in that case, he had no doubt they would meet with the chastisement which they so richly, merited.

Mr. Baring

said, that the hon. member for Shrewsbury had left the House in an awkward situation, not by withdrawing his motion, but by not submitting some other in its stead. He was most ready to do justice to the feelings which actuated the hon. member, but he considered that unless the House were put in a condition to assert its own privileges by punishing its violation, the complaint should not have been made. It should not be supposed that the House would not vindicate itself, nor be suffered to go abroad to the public that any unworthy man might attack it with impunity. He fully agreed with his learned friend that the sending the matter to be tried by a court of law would not be a4 fit proceeding; for, when it got there, it might become a question, whether the case could be punished. The House might, in that case, be open to many attacks; and after they had declared any matter to be a libel and a breach of privilege, it would be awkward to have a court and jury declaring that the House knew nothing at all about it, and that the matter charged was no libel. But, though he could not consent to leave this question sent to a court of law, still he did not think it could rest where it now stood; and therefore, however painful it was to him, he felt it his duty to interfere; and, seeing that no other member was disposed to do so, he would suggest what ought to be done. He was one of those who thought, that not only the debates of that House ought to be sufficient to go forth to the public, but that great freedom should be allowed in discussing the public characters of members of that House; for he considered that such, indulgence was attended with the greatest benefits to the country, and the character of the House itself; therefore he would be extremely jealous of any interference with die press on either of those grounds. But in the case before the House, they had such a gross fabrication as could never be supposed to arise from mistake. There might, and there often were, mistakes arising in the reports, from the great difficulty of hearing what passed; but, in such cases, no intention to misrepresent could be said to exist. Here no such allowance could be made; and no doubt could exist as to the intention of the parties. They had now a person who avowed himself the writer of that article. Cooper bad avowed himself as its author; and, without now saying whether the real author was not behind the curtain, he maintained, that the House was bound to punish the person who so avowed himself. He would therefore move that Cooper be committed to Newgate. After that should be disposed of, he would move that Weaver, the printer, be also committed to Newgate; for he might have given up the editor if he had chosen, while he was under examination before the House. As to the other persons who had been examined, though Ire would say that they had by no means conducted themselves with credit in the evidence they gave, yet, as he had not examined their evidence minutely, he was not prepared to make any motion respecting them. If, however, the debate with respect to them should be adjourned until their evidence should be printed, the House might be better able to form a judgment on it. In conclusion, the hon. member observed, that if on other occasions any similar question should arise, the House would not be swayed by his hon. friend's ideas of privilege. He then moved, "That Henry Fox Cooper, who has confessed himself to be the author of the said paragraph, be for his said offence committed to his Majesty's Gaol of Newgate."

Sir W. De Crespigny

, in seconding the motion, maintained that his hon. friend bad not left the House in an awkward situation by the manner in which he had acted. His hon. friend had done that which was necessary to protect the House and the character of members from being attacked by a set of base assassins; and if the House could not come at the base beings who lurked behind the screen, they ought to punish those unworthy men who allowed themselves to be made their in- struments in such cowardly practices. He was extremely sorry that the real authors could not be discovered.

Lord Nugent

was sure the House were greatly indebted to the noble marquis for the motion of yesterday evening, which gave them all an opportunity of coming to a decision upon this question, in a more calm and deliberate manner. He could not agree to the motion of his hon. friend, the member for Taunton, and would therefore propose an amendment. He could not agree with his hon. friend, that the House was in a dilemma, from which it could extricate itself only by committing Mr. Cooper to Newgate. He begged to bring to the recollection of his hon. friend, and of the House, the circumstances attendant, in the early part of the session, on a breach of their privileges of a much more important and dangerous character than the present. The House could not have forgotten the complaint made by his right hon. friend the member for Waterford, of the address from the Presbytery of Langholm, which had been, published in The Gazette. That address contained a direct invitation to his majesty to interfere with freedom of speech in that House, and to notice certain speeches which had been delivered in it—an invitation which, if his majesty had complied with it, would have placed him in a situation, with relation to that House, in which no sovereign of the country had been placed since Charles the First. A grosser or more flagrant breach of the privileges of that House could not be conceived than the address to which he alluded, in comparison with which any attack on the character of an individual member sunk into utter insignificance. What was the course adopted by the House on that occasion? A motion was made for the attendance of the printer of The Gazette, but it was withdrawn on the noble marquis's making an apology and explanation on the part of the secretary of state. He might feel that the House, in the course which they adopted on that occasion, most dangerously compromised their own character; but he could not help thinking that as they had passed over, and winked at an attempt to induce his majesty to attack the dearest privileges of the House, it would be most ungracious and severe to visit with punishment the poor, wretched, prevaricating printers and publishers who were guilty of nothing out of having allowed themselves to be made the Instruments of concealed, sculking, and infamous assassins of character. He Would therefore move, as an amendment to the motion, to leave but, all the words after the word "offence," for the purpose of adding the words, "taken into the custody Of the Sergeant at Arms, in order, to his being brought to the Bar of this House and reprimanded by Mr. Speaker," instead thereof.

The Marquis of Londonderry

hoped that he had explained himself sufficiently yesterday, to mark that, while he was anxious to avoid any breach of the general principles of justice and the sound administration of the law, especially in abstaining from extracting from the accused evidence to be subsequently used against him, he was not insensible to what the privileges of the House required, and that the person who violated them ought to be visited with the indignation of the House, and with a punishment, in which, however, justice ought to be tempered with mercy. He had no wish for the adoption of any course but one, in a spirit which should show that the House maintained even-handed justice towards all parties, and that no consideration of a private or particular nature should turn the House aside from the vindication of their privileges in one case, and not be allowed to operate in another; and here, he must observe, that he lamented extremely, that an individual so distinguished in his profession as the hon. and learned gentleman opposite, an individual who must be supposed to bring into that House the innate principles of justice that belonged to the profession, of which he was so brilliant an ornament, should permit himself to insinuate that the libellous attack in question proceeded from some unnamed and unknown quarter, as if wishing to inflict a wound on some person or other, whom the speculation of the world might have pointed out as implicated in the subject. The hon. and learned gentleman would forgive him for saying, that in his opinion it would have been better, on the present occasion, to have abstained from the introduction of any such remarks. He lamented also what had fallen from a gallant general of a similar import. He could assure that gallant general, that no man could feel greater indignation than himself at any unjust attack on virtue in women, or honour in men, let it proceed from what quarter it might; and that no man would be more tenacious of those qualities. If the gallant general supposed, therefore, that he was disposed to tolerate any such attack, or that he did not feel jail the indignation which it was calculated to excite, he was very much mistaken. He should certainly have been happy if, at a time when torrents of libels were poured forth against individuals as valuable as the hon. member who was the object of the present, a manly and British spirit of indignation had manifested itself on the other side of the House against those infamous attacks, and in support of our most sacred institutions. But he could not much respect that warmth which was called forth only by attacks on friends, and which was wholly dead to attacks on political enemies, or on the most valuable institutions of the country. He had made these observations, because he was anxious that the House should adopt a moderate and impartial courses Ho would now call their attention to the proceedings of the 15th of June l8l9, which, when he sat down, he should request the clerk to read. At that time there had been an attack on a right hon. friend of his (Mr. Canning) not now present in the House, most painful to his feelings, as it imputed to him a disposition to ridicule the sufferings of his fellow creatures, derogatory from every sentiment that ought to animate human nature. He did not then find any anxiety on the other side of the House to punish the offender by a committal to Newgate, and in fact he was committed to the custody of the serjeant at arms. The present offence could by no means be considered as more flagrant than the one to which he alluded. He thought they would let down the privileges of tile House, if they did not adopt some proceedings with respect to the persons who had been called to the bar; but he was not prepared to go the length of committing them to Newgate. Immediately to reprimand and to discharge them, appeared to him to be too mild a proceeding, and to commit them to Newgate too strong a one. He could assure the House that he was so little inclined to tolerate such publications, that he was by no means disposed to show more charity on the present occasion, than even-handed justice required. He should have had no hesitation in voting to commit those persons to Newgate, had it not been for the lenity, well or ill-advised, which was exhibited, in the particular case to which he had al- juded. Under, these circumstances, he thought it would be the cause of great misconception, if a more severe course were adopted on the present occasion, although he certainly thought that to remain in (Custody of the serjeant at arms for one night would not be too severe a punishment for the offence.

The clerk then read the entry on the Journals of the 15th June, 1819, to the effect that John Payne Collier, having been guilty of a libel on the House, should be committed to the custody of the Serjeant at Arms.

Mr. Scarlett

, in explanation, observed, that be; would not have troubled the House were it not for the allusions made to him by the noble marquis; but as those allusions had been made in so direct and pointed a manner he trusted the House would allow him to make a few remarks upon them. And first, he would observe, that if any thing could give rise to a charge of party feeling on this occasion, it was the tone and manner of the noble marquis. He most solemnly protested that no spirit of party feeling had actuated him upon this question; on the contrary, nothing was farther from his mind during the whole discussion. He had made the observations objected to by the noble marquis, from having heard it rumoured out of doors, that the paragraph in question had been written by a member of that House. He had heard no name mentioned; nor did he believe the statement; on the contrary, he had distinctly said, that the motion of his hon. friend had vindicated that House from such an aspersion. If this was an imputation upon any hon. member, then he did not understand the purport of his own language. He assured the noble marquis that he never had the slightest intention of casting such aspersion on any honourable member, or of treating the subject as a party question. If any thing was calculated to demonstrate a party-feeling, it was what had occurred after he had concluded his speech. For himself he would say that he was the last roan that could think it endurable to express political and party-feelings by libels an individuals. He thought that one who wrote for a party, be it what party it might, was not on that account to be condemned. But attacks on private character for party purposes, ought to be visited with the common detestation of both parties. If there were a design to write down the liberty of the press, the author of the paragraph in question might be the person to execute the design, on the principle that the abuse of any privilege was the surest mode of destroying it. Libels had been punished as high treason by Augustus, on the very ground of an individual, Cassius Sever us, having written libels on illustrious women in Rome. This fact was mentioned by Tacitus. He said this, recollecting that an hon. baronet had last night insinuated that he should not be sorry to see a committee sitting to regulate the liberty of the press. He hoped that neither the writers in this paper, nor in any other, would have the power of occasioning the appointment of such a committee. With respect to the libel on a right hon. gentleman alluded to, he had not been in the House on that occasion; but whether that case was parallel to the present, let the House judge: he understood that the case alluded to had been a misrepresentation of a speech ["No, no!"] He took it to be a misrepresentation of proceedings in that House; but the man who wrote the present libel meant more than misrepresentation. It smelt of blood. If an individual had a design to bring parties to a hostile meeting, he could not have invented a better expedient. That was all he would say upon the parallel. It seemed that the indignation provoked on this occasion was to be repressed, because the House had not been sufficiently prompt on other occasions. If gentlemen would read and countenance only those papers that were the freest from private libels, they would consult both their own dignity and the public interest. He did not read many newspapers; he had not time to read many; and those he did read, were the freest from private libels. The noble lord must pardon him for saying that he was not capable of making or relishing imputations on individuals. The case to which the noble lord had alluded was not to be compared to this case. It must have been placed in comparison with this case, with the view of throwing ridicule on the present complaint. Yet, in that case, had he been in the House, and a motion had been made to commit to Newgate, he would have voted for it.

The Marquis of Londonderry

expressed his regret, that any expressions of a warm character should have escaped him in the course of the debate, but he felt the less upon it, as it had drawn forth the very satisfactory explanation of the hon. and learned member. From the nature of the observations used, he thought that an aspersion was likely to be cast, either upon the council of his majesty or the council of the nation. He confessed that he had spoken under this delusion; but it was now entirely wiped away by the hon. and learned member's explanation. What he meant to say in the first instance was, that the House in its decision should not give a party character to its proceedings. He could not, however, allow the distinction drawn between the present and the former libel. In point of fact, the former libel led to an explanation between his right hon. friend and the hon. member to Whom the words complained of were imputed, and might, under different circumstances, have led to consequences of an equally serious nature.

Sir R. Fergusson

rose to explain. The noble lord had in his first speech imputed political motives to him upon this occasion. This he positively denied. Where the noble lord got his omniscience as to the motives and feelings of other men he could not guess; but he thought the noble lord had better look to his own feelings and motives upon this question. He had spoken upon this subject from honest feelings of indignation at seeing the foulest calumnies published against the Women of this country. He trusted the noble lord and the House would coincide with him in reprobating this new system of attack upon the women of the country.

The Marquis of Londonderry

wished the gallant general would express the same indignation when other hon. members were attacked.

Mr. Wynn

observed, that the noble marquis had selected the very weakest case of precedent on the Journals. In all cases of privilege, the honour and character of the House were alone to be looked to. It was said, that libels were become more frequent; but this, in his opinion, was the very reason why the punishment should be made more severe. He had seen in papers belonging to both parties, libels which were disgraceful to the country, and, to those who administered public justice, for allowing them to pass Unpunished. The noble marquis had relied on a case which occurred two years ago. He could not say any thing in mitigation of that case; be thought it a most flagitious libel, and one which called for a much severer punishment than that with which it had been visited. Here the hon. member entered into a descrip- tion of the libel. The author, when called to the bar, admitted the fact, and stated that he had done so by mistake. He (Mr. W.) had felt it impossible that the person could be so much mistaken, but several members thought differently; and a member now in his place behind him, had stated, that he had heard something like what was charged as a libel, and that a person at a distance might be mistaken. This had gone in mitigation of punishment, and he did not wish to move any amendment, seeing the temper of the House at the time. But he had observed, at the time, that they were proceeding without a proper consideration for the dignity and character of parliament. This was then his opinion, and his conviction now was, that they had encouraged libels by the lenity shown on that occasion. He knew there were many who thought that he had too great a predilection for precedents; but if they were to regulate their conduct now by the weak precedent alluded to by the noble marquis, the people would say that the House had determined the punishment of a breach of privilege to be imprisonment in the custody of the serjeant at arms. And if this was once done, would it, he asked, be worth the while of any member to bring a breach of privilege before the House? He was aware that mistakes must take place in publishing the debates, from the disadvantageous situation in which the persons who reported them were placed. But he must say, that he had seen, and that lately, wilful misrepresentations in the public papers, particularly in the comments on the debates. But in this case they ought to look, not to the general character of the paper, but to the particular libel complained of. If the House felt concerned that they did not punish the last libel with more severity, and if they were to act upon that precedent upon the present occasion, the privileges of the House, the character of its members, and the liberties of the people, which were closely interwoven with both, would suffer, and that most fatally.

The Hon. J. W. Ward

could not conceive that any thing could be more dangerous than that an impression should go abroad that it was safer to attack gentlemen on one side of the House than upon the other. He entertained a high respect for the character of the hon. member for Shrewsbury; but he entertained quite as high a respect for the character of his right hon. friend, the member for Liverpool. In consequence of what had occurred in the House last night, his attention had been attracted to the libel which had been published upon his right hon. friend; and he had in consequence that morning copied out the words in which it was couched. The House would recollect the circumstances under which those words were stated to have been spoken. The hon. member for Aberdeen was stated to have said—in consequence of some laughter which it was conceived that he had seen on the ministerial benches—"Ministers might laugh, but let them look at the other side of the picture; let them survey the misery of the poor laborious, industrious wretches at Carlisle, or even of the unhappy beings they meet in our streets; and he believed that 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 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." He did not mean to enter further into the particulars of that case; but he must say, that be never recollected to have seen a more false, atrocious, or scandalous libel than that which was contained in the paragraph which he had read, or one that was a more indirect instigation to blood. Atrocious as the present libel was, it was less atrocious than the libel to which he had just referred, inasmuch as it referred to a peculiar fact—the other, to the whole life of his right hon. friend. A man of honour was obliged to a calumniator who accused him of any one particular action, inasmuch as that action might either be denied or explained away; but an attack upon a man's general life admitted of no such defence, and could not be met by any satisfactory refutation. If he were to be called upon to strike a balance between the two outrages, he must declare that he should feel it more unpleasant to be the subject of the first than of the latter libel. On this account, he thought that the House, in justice to the character of his right hon. friend, ought to adopt the milder course of proceeding. He knew that some gentlemen were of opinion that the punishment inflicted in the last case was not severe enough; but he begged leave to remind the. House that it was passed nemine contradicente.

Lord John Russell

said, that with respect to the punishment which it was, fitting to inflict upon the authors of libels upon that House, he should not venture to hazard any opinion, except it were, that in all such cases the least punishment that was inflicted was the best. With regard to the libel which had been just read to the House, it ought to be recollected, that the right hon. member for Liverpool had used the expression, "the revered and ruptured Ogden;" and that there was considerable laughter in consequence. Owing to that circumstance many gentlemen accused him of being in the habit of turning into ridicule the sufferings of his fellow-creatures. He did not mean to say that such an accusation was just; he meant only to say, that it was an accusation frequently made against the right hon. member. He recollected that when the House inquired into that libellous paragraph, the person who wrote it came forward to acknowledge himself the author of it, and stated that it had been written by him in mistake, and that the House credited his statement, conceiving him to have put down that which he had not accurately heard. He did not, however, rise for the purpose of repeating those facts to the House, but for the purpose of entering his protest against the doctrine of the noble marquis, that he and the friends with whom he had the honour of acting were in the habit of giving their countenance to libels, similar to that which was contained in the paper called "John Bull." He would allow that severe political reflections had recently appeared in many of the newspapers; but he could only pity the noble marquis's want of discrimination of moral feeling, if he confounded attacks upon private character with fair political hostility and animadversion. The one could be answered; the other could not. A person might, for instance, charge the noble marquis with having ordered persons to be flogged to death, or tortured during his administration in Ireland. The noble marquis could disprove this; he might appeal to the whole of his public life as a contradiction to such a statement; but, suppose the character of any female belonging to the noble marquises family were to be publicly attacked, would he, though the insinuation was as false as hell, feel it sufficient that her innocence could be proved, by unveiling and laying before the public the whole of her private life? However pure the character of a woman might be, yet there was a delicacy in the female character which made them shrink from public notice; and, though a woman were convinced of the falsehood of the charge against her, yet she would feel a repugnance to have her character brought forward and discussed in public. He could not entirely acquit the noble marquis and his friends of having given encouragement to this publication; for he had heard that when "John Bull" was first published, copies had been sent to our ambassadors abroad. Now, it was well known, that no newspaper could go abroad postage free, unless sent through the medium of government; if this was done, it alone was giving encouragement to the paper. He had no hesitation in saying, that if ministers or their friends took in this paper and paid for it [a laugh], he had no objection to a person's meeting and reading the paper; but, he repeated, that if they took in the paper and paid for it, they were paying their money in support of moral assassination.

The Marquis of Londonderry

interrupted the noble lord by stating, that, if we heard him correctly, the noble lord's information about our ambassadors at foreign courts seemed to be as correct as his information respecting Irish politics. Where the noble lord got his information he did not know, but he could inform him, that it was a rank and egregious calunmny. If the noble lord would point out to him a single individual in his office, who had sanctioned the circulation of this paper by sending it to foreign courts, he pledged his honour that he would dismiss that individual immediately. With regard to the defence of the female sex which the noble lord had volunteered, he hoped the noble lord would have no objection to admit him as his rival in it; for he did not feel inclined to devolve upon that noble lord, or upon any other person, that duty which he owed to the sex, in common with every other man of honour in society. He could assure the noble lord that he had no intention to justify the present libel—on the contrary, he looked upon it with extreme indignation; all that he had done was, to compare it with paragraphs not less infamous, with attacks not less malevolent, which had appeared in other papers, arraigning interests the most sacred, and insulting the personal character even of majesty itself. He should like to know whether the noble lord had never taken in the publications of Mr. Hone. He had never heard the noble lord express any indignation against them, though he did recollect that his noble brother had, upon one occasion, reprobated them with a warmth that did him honour. But he would quit that subject; for he should be sorry to end a speech, which he had only commenced to repel an unjust attack upon himself with an attack upon any other person. He could only say that he looked upon libels that attacked the life and character of the sovereign as not less atrocious than those written against female honour and purity.

Mr. W. Courtenay,

after stating that he wished to call the attention of the House to the true question before it, proceeded to implore it to be consistent in its conduct, and to deal out the same measure of justice in this as it had done in a former instance, if it conceived the cases to be at all parallel. He could not hope to add any weight to the indignation which had been so justly expressed against the language used in this publication; but he thought the House was going out of its way in entering into any discussion on the general conduct of any newspaper, when they had before it a paragraph which was at once a violation of the privileges of the House, and a libel upon one of its members. He conceived it to be the duty of the House to consider whether the case which had been so often referred to, was analogous to the case then before it. In his opinion, the analogy was perfect. That being the case, he thought the House ought not to allow itself to be carried away by the indignation which it felt at the general conduct of the "John Bull" newspaper, but should adopt the course recommended by the noble marquis, in justice not only to the House itself, but to each of its members individually.

Lord John Russell

said, that as he had never read Mr. Hone's publications, he did not think the point which the noble marquis had started regarding them worth discussion. He had never taken them in; but he believed they were all of a political nature, and not subversive of private character.

Mr. W. Smith

said, that as he was for the severer punishment on this occasion, he felt it necessary to say a few words upon it. He was one who thought that the greatest latitude ought to be allowed in discussions on public men and public measures; so much was he of this opinion, that he would never vote for calling the printer or publisher of a paper to the bar for political libel. But when the grossest personal attack was made upon private character, an attack which smelt of blood—when it was stated that an hon. member of that House had told a falsehood, through fear, it became their duty to punish such conduct in the severest manner: when it was recollected that, this, attack might have produced a bloody and murderous quarrel, there was no punishment too great for such abominable depravity. He did not mean to defend the libel upon the right hon. member for Liverpool, and if he thought that the individual who wrote it had done so wilfully, he would have voted for his punishment. But he did not believe that he wrote it willfully, he from his knowledge of Mr. Collier's character, he was assured of the contrary. But in the instance before the House, the person confessed at the bar that he had wilfully written the libel, and that too upon the rumour of the persons by whom he was employed. The case respecting the report of the speech of the right hon. gentleman, was in every respect different from the case before the House. But it was, said, that because the party before the House was a mean, dirty, prevaricating wretch, he should therefore have been excused. He was surprised to hear such an argument urged. It was, he believed, the, first time that it was asserted, that a lesser degree of punishment ought to be dealt out to a party, because that party had been guilty of the most gross and indecent prevarication. He certainly would vote for the severer degree of punishment.

Mr. Hutchinson

could not allow the present question to proceed to a vote, without entering his protest against the comparison which had been made between two parties without the slightest justice whatever. To make such a comparison was to confound innocence with guilt, was to confound the individual who had intended to wound with the individual who had, unintentionally wounded, was to confound great respectability of character with all that is mean, despicable, and infamous. Let the House look at the two cases. Mr. Collier was connected with a most respectable establishment in the city —an establishment as useful and as beneficial as any establishment in the country, and little liable for charges of wantonly wounding private feelings. It was an establishment accustomed to take up and advocate with success, and, disinterestedness every thing connected with the interests of the state, and the first elements of the constitution. [Coughing].—The gentlemen who had compared Mr. Collier's case with that of Mr. Cooper had been guilty of great injustice, and he trusted that it was not their intention in exercise their privileges in such a manner as to do injury to any individual. The cases, he maintained, were most dissimilar. Mr. Collier appeared at their bar, and his conduct, whilst there, had created in the House a strong feeling in his behalf. There was nothing like prevarication on his part; his conduct was fair, open, and manly. He never saw any individual in any situation whose behaviour was more becoming than that of Mr. Collier at the bar of that House. He accounted fairly and rationally for the mistake which he had committed. He said that he did not mean any offence either to the gentleman whose words had been misrepresented, or the gentleman whose conduct had been impugned. An expression which the right hon. member for Liverpool had used had made an impression on the public, which, whether it was right or wrong, was not very much to his credit. At the time the hon. member for Aberdeen was speaking, there was a noise in the House occasioned by cries of "hear, hear." Mr. Collier, not having himself exactly heard the words of the hon. member for Aberdeen, appealed to a stranger for information. Believing the information which he had received to be correct, and also believing that the right hon. member for Liverpool was in the House, he had written the paragraph in question. Such was the case of Mr. Collier; and he must say that, in his opinion there never was a case in which an individual was more innocently involved than that gentleman. Allowing this, he must at the same time admit that he had, with the most innocent intentions, involved Mr. Hume in considerable difficulty. But, could this be said of Mr. Cooper? He was for from wishing for any vindictive punishment on this occasion; and, indeed, had only risen to express the indignation which he felt at hearing the case of Mr. Collier so unjustly compared with one to which it bore no comparison.

Mr. Wilmat

said, he should give his vote for the infliction of the severer punishment. He thought the analogy which it had been attempted to establish be- tween the two cases had been completely destroyed, by the Fact that an hon. member had laboured under the same misconception with regard to what had fallen from the right hon. member for Aberdeen as Mr. Collier. He must protest against the House coming to any Vote upon this question on any other grounds than those afforded by the abstract paragraph in question. They had nothing to do at present with the general manner in which the "John Bull" was conducted.

Sir T. Lethbridge

denied that he had ever asserted that the press ought to be submitted to a committee of the House. All he had said was, that it was high time for the House to mark its disapprobation of the gross libels daily circulated.

Mr. Baring

added, that his only motives for persevering in his motion were, that the privileges of the House might be vindicated, and the guilty party duly punished. With regard to the case supposed by some to be analogous, he must say that he saw little or no resemblance between the two. That which occurred two years ago was merely a misrepresentation; but the one now under consideration contained a statement entirely fictitious.

Mr. Bankes

requested the noble marquis to withdraw his amendment. The House had committed a gross error in the precedent quoted; and he begged to add that he had been a reluctant party to it.

The Marquis of Londonderry

replied, that an appearance of as much unanimity as could be procured was desirable; and on that account he would withdraw his amendment. He was free to confess, that he thought it better to break than to observe the precedent.

Sir J. Mackintosh

submitted to his noble friend, whether he would not withdraw his amendment, the noble marquis having already complied with what appeared to be the general wish of the House. He thought it one of the most unfortunate symptoms, of the present times, that several most respectable members had, oh the present occasion, expressed what he could not but consider a groundless and fatal doubt regarding the right of asserting the privileges of parliament, which constituted, in. fact, one of the main securities of the subject. He had looked into the publication in question; and from what he had seen and heard, he was satisfied that it pursued a system of savage hostility to individuals, tend- ing to barbarize political contests, and to deprive them of that manly and candid character which had hitherto distinguished them above all others in the great commonwealth of the world.

Lord Nugent

said, he Would not resist the general wish of the House by persevering in his amendment.

Mr. Brougham

said, that as the case of Mr. Collier had been so much alluded to, he rose to state his recollection of the circumstances. The case of Mr. Collier was not one of wilful misrepresentation. When called to the bar, his manner made a very favourable impression. The consistency of his statement was also considered, and there was the evidence of a member of that House, that, to the best of his recollection, the hon. member for Aberdeen had made use of words similar to those which were reported by Mr. Collier. If he thought Mr. Collier had been guilty of putting into the mouth of a member of that House malicious falsehoods, in order to gratify his own malignity, for that was the charge against the young gentleman, no consideration of lenity would have induced him to vote in that case for a lesser punishment. The case of Mr. Collier was entirely different from the case before the House. Here there was nothing to exculpate the party; on the contrary, there was the absence of every extenuating circumstance. He should therefore vote for the more severe punishment.

Lord Nugent

said, that though he withdrew his amendment in deference to the House, he did not at the same time surrender his own opinion.

The question being then put on Mr. Baring's motion, "That Henry Fox Cooper, who has confessed himself to have been the author of the said paragraph, be for his said offence committed to his majesty's gaol of Newgate," the House divided: Ayes, 109; Noes, 23.

List of the Minority.
Astley, J. D. Innes, J.
Barrett, S. Johnstone, col.
Bernal, R. Martin, sir B.
Burrell, W. Monck, J. B.
Burrell, sir C. Moore, P.
Bury, lord Nugent, lord.
Chaloner, R. Tavistock, lord
Crawley, S. Ward, J.W.
Downie, R. Wemyss, J.
Graham, S. White, J.
Grosett, J, R. TELLERS.
Harbord, hon. E. Fergusson, sir R.
Hume, J. Hobhouse, J. C.

After the division,

Mr. Sturges

Bourne said, he thought the House was placed in an embarrassing situation, in being called upon to punish persons for what they had done in the course of an examination at the bar into1 their private concerns. That examination had been carried further than he had recollected the House ever to have gone before and had it not been for the obloquy attached to such an interference, he should more than once have stood up for the protection of the witnesses against questions tending to criminate themselves. Besides this, many members could not be prepared to vote on this part of the question, not having been present during the whole of the evidence. In order to enable them to form a judgment, the evidence ought to be printed; but he was prevented from voting for making a motion to that effect, from a conviction that a great part of the examination had been of so indiscreet a nature on the part of the House, that it would not reflect much credit upon it.

Sir J. Mackintosh

expressed his deep regret that the right hon. gentleman, for whom he entertained the highest respect, had been induced to make the statement just heard it amounted to this—that during the long examinations that had taken place on this subject, which he thought derogatory to the House and oppressive to the individuals, he had set still, without urging any objection, on account of the obloquy and unpopularity he might incur: he had permitted the House, in his judgment, to disgrace itself by the course it had pursued, because he did not choose to run the risk of an unjust imputation. It was deeply to be lamented that a member so endowed should have made such a statement. He would protest against this reference of the order of their proceedings to that of other courts. They were alone to be governed by the lex et consuetudo parliamenti. His right hon. friend had pointed out no departure from that law, in the course of the examination which had been pursued: bad there been any departure from it, the proceeding would have been stopped by their enlightened director. But if his vigilance had for a moment slumbered, there were, no doubt, other members well versed in the practice of parliament who would have interposed, and prevented any departure from the rules of justice. Why had not his right hon. friend interposed, and prevented their sinking into the abyss which had, seemed, opened for them, instead of waiting until it was too late to redeem their character? He did not find fault so much with his right hon. friend's opinion new with his previous silence, when he might perhaps have averted the stigma which he supposed they had incurred. He must therefore vindicate the proceedings of the House from his right hon. friend's imputation upon them, and even vindicate his right hon. friends from the reason which he had assigned for his silence upon the occasion to which he had referred.

Mr. S. Bourne,

in explanation, said, that what he had stated was, that in the unpleasant situation in which the persons at the bar were placed, being called on to acknowledge their own criminality, the House had gone too far in the examination. All he should have thought proper to do, and all that had usually been done in such cases was, to get at the legal liability of the persons called on to answer for their offence, and having done that, to abstain from all questions tending to aggravate their criminality. He had urged that they should consider the circumstances under which the prevarication took place; for really, as to the libel, they did not prevaricate. The printer had stated, for instance, that he had nothing to do with the literary department. But many questions were asked him which were not relevant: a noble lord had asked him, what he had to do with "The Traveller?" Another hon. member had asked, whether he had any money at his banker's? These questions as to private affairs were unwarrantable. He had on former occasions made the same objections to the latitude of examination pursued in the House.

Mr. Scarlett

agreed that limits should be set to the examination of individuals: but, in the present instance, he conceived the course of the examination to have been proper; for Weaver having given an answer respecting the property of the paper, which gave the House reason to suspect that he prevaricated, it became necessary to pursue that examination farther.

Sir W. De Crespigny

said, the House had proceeded on the true principles of justice and in support of their privileges. The questions which had been put, led directly to the real merits of the case.

Lord Nugent

said, he had not asked the witness respecting "The Traveller;" but the name of that paper was used by the witness himself in his answer"

Mr. Wynn

agreed, that no questions ought to be unnecessarily put to a witness for the purpose of aggravating his offence: but, though he could not defend every question which had been put, he thought the questions alluded to might have proved material.

The Marquis of Londonderry

observed, that if the discussion was to be continued upon the comparative testimony of the witnesses, it would be better to have the evidence printed, and the decision deferred. This was a case in which the House ought to avoid incurring the charge, of precipitation.

Mr. Denman

was not prepared to vote all the witnesses guilty of prevarication, without having the evidence previously printed. He had voted for sending the editor to Newgate, because he had heard what he said at the bar of that House.

Mr. Bernal

admitted that the House was in possession of the power of committing for breach of privileges; but they should not fritter it away by exerting it on light occasions; and he thought it would have been well if, after the member for Shrewsbury had vindicated his honour, which had been most unjustly aspersed, the matter had been dropped.

Mr. W. Smith

had no objection to the printing of the evidence, if any further proceedings were deemed necessary; but, for his own part, he thought that a sufficient number of members were present who had heard the evidence of the parties, to come now to a decision upon the fact of their prevarication. He would therefore withdraw his motion, and move, instead of it, "That Robert Thomas Weaver has grossly prevaricated in his evidence before this House."

Mr. Wilson

could not pretend to assert that Weaver had not been guilty of prevarication, but he thought enough had been done for the dignity of the House. As to the other two, he thought there was more impropriety of motive apparent than of absolute prevarication. It appeared that Shackle and Arrowsmith had been prosecuted for a libel; and finding that they were likely to get into more of such scrapes, had made a. bargain with the printer to the effect, that if he took the paper off their hands he should have the profits. At least this might have been the case and the evidence did not con- clusively show that it was not. There seemed a possible reason why they had not a written agreement; for as they had the printing materials and other property, they might be endangered by any written agreement with this man of straw.

Lord Stanley

said, he had been present at the whole of the examination, and he must say that if ever he witnessed a gross attempt to defeat the ends of justice by prevarication, it was in those witnesses. They all of them seemed to have some mental reservation, and in every answer showed a wish to induce a different meaning from what they entertained.

The motion was agreed to. Mr. Smith next moved, "That Robert Thomas Weaver be, for his said offence, taken into the custody of the serjeant at arms, in order to his being brought to the Bar of this House, and reprimanded by Mr. Speaker." Mr. Wynn moved, by way of amendment, to leave; out from the word "Offence" to the end of the question, in order to add the words, "Committed to his majesty's gaol of Newgate," instead thereof. The question being put, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the question,"

The House divided: Ayes, 27; Noes, 34. The amendment was then agreed to, and Mr. Speaker was ordered to issue his warrants accordingly.

Mr. Brougham

said, he was not prepared to give a vote on the case of the other two individuals without having the printed evidence before him. Whether they had prevaricated or not, he did not know at that time, and therefore he wished the further consideration of the subject to be adjourned.

Sir W. De Crespigny moved, "That the evidence taken at the Bar of the House, in the matter of this Complaint, be printed."

Sir C. Long

said, that pregnant doubts existed in the minds of many gentlemen as to the fact whether these men had or had not been guilty of prevarication. He had himself heard the whole of the evidence of Arrowsmith; and he saw not thing like prevarication in it. Neither did he think that there was any prevarication in Shackle's evidence. Doubts being entertained whether they had prevaricated or riot, he thought the House ought to proceed no further.

Mr. Baring

concurred in the opinion that it would become the House not to go farther in this affair. This was his opi- nion, although he had no doubt whatever, that Arrowsmith and Shackle were the real proprietors of the publication. But still he could not see how the House could, upon the ground of prevarication, commit those two persons.

Colonel Davies

thought that as the House had gone so far, it should, not allow the greater delinquents to escape with impunity, while their instruments were condemned to imprisonment. For his own part, he was of opinion that it would be better not to take any notice of attacks of the press of this description: but when the attention of the House was called to them, it was due to its dignity and character to proceed to ascertain and punish the real offenders.

Mr. Wynn

thought the House could have no doubt, that the individuals on whose case they were now to decides were the proprietors of the paper. To him it appeared that they were more guilty than the men of straw who had been committed to Newgate. He did not consider that it was necessary to print the evidence. In a case like the present, where the offence complained of was proved to have been committed by the parties brought before them, he thought the heaviest punishment ought to be inflicted.

The motion for printing the evidence was then negatived, and Messrs. Arrowsmith and Shackle were discharged.