§ Mr. Dawsonrose to complain of a report of a speech purporting to have been made in that House, which had appeared in one of the public papers, which he considered, from the sentiments it contained to be a gross breach of privilege. He presumed it was in the recollection of the House, that a debate took place respecting the Estimate of the Civil Contingencies on Friday last, 528 when he had objected to the voles to Mr. Marshall and Dr. Bowring, contained in that Estimate, and had been replied to by the hon. member for Middlesex, who took a different view of the subject from that which he thought it his duty to present to the House. On looking into the papers of the following day, he found a report of that debate; but attached to the speech of the hon. member for Middlesex was a passage which was not only offensive to him, but to the character of that House, and of an individual holding an office in his Majesty's service. The passage to which he alluded was this: "And did the right hon. Gentleman recollect the case of Sir George Hill, in his new-born zeal for economy aad good faith?" When he (Mr. Dawson) read this passage, he was impressed with a conviction that it had not been uttered or expressed by the hon. member for Middlesex. Since reading it, he had submitted it to several Members of the House, and also to the hon. member for Middlesex, and those Gentlemen, as well as himself, were convinced that it had not been used. The passage was intended, he felt convinced, as a slur on him for having defended Sir George Hill on a late occasion, when he was made the object of accusation in the House. Now, one thing convinced him that the hon. member for Middlesex could not have made allusion in any way to Sir George Hill, without its attracting his attention, as he (Mr. Dawson) had been for some time past extremely anxious to have an opportunity of stating in the House, that Sir George Hill had fully paid up the balance of his debts to the public accounts. As soon as that gentleman was informed of this balance, it had been immediately discharged, and, in every way, Sir George Hill was to be considered as having honourably met all demands which the Government had upon him. Now, if the hon. member for Middlesex had alluded to any claim which he might conceive the Government had on that individual, he (Mr. Dawson) should most unquestionably have availed himself of the opportunity of stating that fact. It was on these grounds he conceived that he bad cause to complain. He was aware that, if he chose, it was in his power to call upon the printer of The Times to name the individual who had published such a report, with a view to his being reprimanded by the House; but he did not conceive the matter to be of any importance. He 529 did not wish to enter into any collision with the public Press; at the same time, be thought it his duty to avail himself of another course to prove the inaccuracy of the report. It was attributed to the hon. member for Middlesex. Now, if that hon. Member would get up in the House, and deny having made use of the passage attributed to him, he should feel perfectly satisfied; and he felt convinced, that the shame and the crime of deceiving the public would rest with the newspaper, and the Gentleman who had reported the speech. It was with this view that he had mentioned the subject to the House, and he felt sure the hon. member for Middlesex would have no objection to comply with his wish.
Mr. Humeapprehended that there could scarcely be any necessity for him to repeat the denial he had already given to the right hon. Gentleman's question. He begged, however, to assure the right hon. Gentleman, that so far from alluding to the case of Sir George Hill, he did not, at the time of making the speech in question, recollect the circumstance. He had only to observe, that he had not uttered the words attributed to him, or in any way alluded to Sir George Hill.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that if his right hon. friend had to complain of insertions, he (Mr. Goulburn) had to complain of studied omissions in the reports of the proceedings of that House. Some few nights ago, the hon. member for Middlesex had quoted a clause from what he conceived to be an Act of Parliament, and, upon this quotation, he had fixed an accusation against him (Mr. Goulburn) for the discharge of his duties while in office. In his reply, he had read the real clause, bearing upon the point in question, which completely exculpated him. In the report of the debate on the following morning, he found every word that had fallen from the hon. member for Middlesex reported, while his reply was studiously suppressed. He really thought, if these omissions were to be of frequent occurrence, the House would find it necessary by some means or other to vindicate its privileges.
§ The conversation dropped.