Commons Sitting of 29 July 1833

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of Mr. FOWELL BUXTON, Copies or Extracts of all Population Returns from the several Slave Colonies, received since the last were presented.—On the Motion of Mr. VIGORS, a Return from the Trustees acting under the Act of 56th Geo. 3rd, and 20th Geo. 4th, for Building a New Church and Chapel in St. Pancras, Middlesex; of all Sums Assessed, Collected, Received, and Borrowed, under and by virtue of the said Acts, &c.
Bill. Read a second time:—Assessed Taxes' Reductions.
Petitions presented. By Mr. EWART, Mr. DOBBIN, Mr. ROEBUCK, Mr. MARSHALL, Mr. SALISBURY TRELAWNEY, and Sir RICHARD VIVIAN, from Liverpool, Bath, &c.,—against; and by Mr. FOWELL BUXTON, from a Number of Places, in favour of the Slavery Abolition Bill.—By the Earl of DARLINGTON, from the Brickmakers of Broslee, and other Places, for the Repeal of the Duty on Bricks.—By Sir EDWARD CODRINGTON, from St. James's, Clerken-well, against the Contribution of Sixpence per Month by Merchant Seamen towards the Support of Greenwich Hospital.—By Lord HENNIKER and Mr. SHAWE, from Vox-ford and Halesworth, for the Establishment of Local Courts.—By Mr. VIGORS, from St. Pancras, Middlesex, for the Abolition of the Metropolitan Police.—By Sir EDWARD KNATCHBULL, from Feversham, for Amending the Sale of Beer Act.—By Mr. MARSHALL, from Leeds, for Equalizing the Duties on Sugar.

MINISTERIAL PLAN FOR THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY.
On the Order of the Day being moved for the House to go into Committee on the Abolition of Slavery Bill,
Mr. Wilksrose to inquire of the right hon. the Secretary for the Colonies what provision was intended to be made by the Government for the moral and religious instruction of the enfranchised negroes? It was fully understood that the provisions of the Bill were to be founded upon the Resolution which had been agreed to by both Houses of Parliament. The last of these Resolutions determined that such instruction should be provided for the liberated slaves; but, on looking over the Bill, he had not been able to discover the slightest indication of any means of carrying that intention into effect. Within the last two months, religious persecutions had been renewed in the island of Jamaica, and the properly of unoffending individuals had been confiscated to pay penalties inflicted for attending religious worship. His conduct, and that of many other Members, he believed, would be regulated in a great measure by the answer which he received.
Mr. Secretary Stanleysaid, he did not precisely know the meaning of the hon. Member. If it was to ask whether the Government intended to give full effect to the establishment of civil and religious liberty, he would answer, yes, such were the intentions of Government; and he believed that one clause in the Bill established the same law in the colonies as in England. When that clause was under consideration would be the proper time for introducing any Amendment.
Mr. Andrew Johnstonedid not think the right hon. Secretary had fully answered the question of the hon. Member, and trusted that that hon. Member would take another opportunity of pressing his views, by proposing an additional clause. He could not agree with that part of the Bill which put education under the care of the Colonial Legislatures. He would as soon have left the legislation upon the Irish Coercion Bill to the Whitefeet, as agree to leave the Local Assemblies to regulate the religious education of the slaves.
The House in Committee.
On the 10th clause being read—
Mr. Patrick Stewartsaid, he would not raise an objection to any part of the Bill except for the advantage of the larger

61
communities, the welfare of which would I be affected by it. Now, in some of the in larger islands, the population of the negroes was so great, that they could hardly find unappropriated ground to stand upon; and there was, consequently, very little employment for them. Of what use was it to give them time, if they could get no employment, and therefore no wages? He thought it would be the best way to allow them to be transferred with their own consent, from the too populous to the thinly-peopled islands, where there would be a demand for their labour, and where they would receive good wages. He knew that the hon. member for Weymouth would object and would refer to the transfers that had heretofore been made of slaves from the Bahamas to Trinidad and Demerara. But the hon. Member should recollect that those transfers were made without the consent of the slaves; and every man, who knew anything of the negroes, was aware, that there was no race of men more attached to localities and inanimate things than they were. If the clause were passed in its present shape, it would inflict idleness and poverty on a large number of slaves in several islands.
Dr. Lushingtonopposed any such alteration as that suggested by his hon. friend, on the ground that, if it were permitted, it would be subjected to much abuse. If the slave were worth little, for that little the master would give him his freedom, and then he might go where he pleased. He was afraid, if the proposition were agreed to, it would expose the slaves to much imposition.
Mr. Fowell Buxtonsaid, there was no part of the slavery question in which he felt more interest than that which was now before the House. His hon. friend had referred to the removals to Trinidad, but his hon. friend was wrong in supposing that they were not effected by the consent of the negro. The Act provided that it should not be done, except with the consent of the negro. It was known in that case, that the negroes were removed, and that they died like rotten sheep. His firm conviction was, that if they were to proceed in the way proposed, in the course of the next six or seven years there would be a transfer of 20,000 slaves from island to island, and not a thousand of that number would be alive at the end of their apprenticeship.
Mr. Robert Gordonconcurred in the
62
opinion of the hon. member for Weymouth. He considered there was no proposition that would be attended with more difficulty between the planters and their apprentices than that which was made by his hon. friend opposite (Mr. Stewart); and while his hon. friend sup-posed it would be an advantage to the people of Barbadoes, they were protesting strongly against it, because it would expose their negroes to the influence of speculators from Demerara.
Mr. Fowell Buxtonmoved as an Amendment to the clause, "that no apprentice should be removed from one colony to another after the passing of this Act, without the consent of the said apprentice given and recorded in writing-signed by the said two Justices of the Peace." He could produce a great number of authorities equally conclusive on this point, but he felt satisfied the House would fully concur with him in thinking that these apprentices ought not to be considered as slaves, and that they should not be removed from place to place without their own consent and authority. If any objection was made to this, he should certainly feel it his duly to press it to a division.
Amendment agreed to.
The clause to stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Secretary Stanleysaid, that it was intended to amend clause 12, by adding, that the slave should not be employed more than forty-live hours each week, and that the time for cultivating his provision ground should not be deducted from his weekly but annual time.
Lord Howickconcurred in the Amendment, but with it he still thought the clause tended to great objections. For many years, it would be in the recollection of the House, endeavours had been made to prevail on the colonists to make more liberal allowances to the slaves. The clause, as it now stood, would give advantage to those colonies that had been most obstinate in preventing the execution of the orders of Government. He should therefore suggest that they should give small sums to the slave for his labour—say even the sum of 6d. for seven hours and a-half—that would reconcile him to the apprenticeship imposed upon him. It was very well known that the slaves were very fond of having money given to them. The adoption of the proposition which he had brought forward would, in his opinion,

63
meet the wishes of both parties. Although the Amendment would not remove all the objections he had to the Bill, it would remove many of them.
Mr. Secretary Stanleythought, by carrying into effect the Amendment of the noble Lord, a gross breach of justice would be committed, and Parliament would be taking to itself a power which it never ought to exercise.
Mr. Fowell Buxtonwas convinced, that nothing would induce negroes to work so well or so readily as holding out an inducement of wages; the evidence given before the Committee proved that fact; but the House had already decided against the system of wages. He hoped that the right hon. Secretary (Mr. Stanley) would consent to the introduction of a clause that should approximate towards wages, by allowing the negroes a small sum, say a half-penny per hour, for their labour. The planters complained of the expensive and tiresome mode of laying in stores of provisions for the negroes, and therefore it would be better to allow a small sum for wages, that the negro might know he was working for wages. The prospect of emancipation through an apprenticeship, would be no inducement equivalent to wages. At all events, the slaves should have the option of having allowances and provision grounds, or of having wages.
Mr. O'Reillysaid, he hoped the right hon. Secretary would, instead of allowing the negro so many hours on an annual average, make it so many hours per week, so that he might cultivate his own grounds. It was true that the crop season was a busy one for the planter, but it was also an important one for the negro in the cultivation of his garden; but if at that period the master chose to call on his negro for extra labour, he should pay for it.
Mr. Secretary Stanleysaid, that was precisely what the clause would effect If the negro worked for his master more than the 45 hours in crop time, the latter would be bound to pay for the extra labour.
Mr. Jamessaid, he was the proprietor of one estate in the island of Jamaica, and he had several slaves, who contrived, despite of their labour for their master, to amass considerable sums of money from their savings, when not engaged at their daily employment. One slave of his alone at that moment had upwards of 200 l., the amount of savings from the
64
produce of a bit of land; and that very slave, although possessed of so much money, would not consent to receive his emancipation, if he thought it was to be at the loss of his trifling allotment of ground. The slaves were now to be paid money for their hours of employment. Now, he would ask, what were they to receive money for? Was it for eating, drinking, lodging—all of which they at present had, free of expense, and an allotment of ground besides? Hon. Gentlemen considered they were entitled to money payments, at the rate of one half-penny an hour, in place of allowances. That they were slaves it was true; but were there, he would ask, no such slaves in England—men who laboured and toiled to earn a subsistence? And it would be for any hon. Member to come forward and adduce a single instance where a labourer by his exertions was enabled to amass such a sum as the slave whom he (Mr. James) had instanced. The slaves were to be emancipated, and he rejoiced at it. But hon. Members, he conceived, had exaggerated when they thought slaves should have money wages. The hon. Member concluded by condemning the publication got up under the sanction of the Anti-Slavery Society, as being full of exaggerations and falsehoods.
Mr. Fowell Buxtonconceived the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down could not have possibly adduced stronger arguments in favour of the payment of money for labour than those he was pleased to utter, evidently intended to have an opposite tendency. The hon. Member was pleased to allude to a publication got up under the auspices of the Anti-Slavery Society, as if he (Mr. Fowell Buxton) was the author of it. Now, in denying such to be the fact, he assured hon. Members he did so with regret. He could not acknowledge that he was, but for the satisfaction of the hon. Member, he could acquaint him not only with the name of that gentleman, whom he was proud to acknowledge as his friend, but also that that gentleman had done more by his exertions to promote the great cause of anti-slavery, than any other man in existence—and that was Mr. Macaulay.
Mr. Patrick Stewartsaid, the Amendments of the noble Lord and the hon. member for Weymouth would be unnecessary interpolations of the principle of the Bill, They would be unjust to the

65
planter, and injurious to the slaves, who would be apprehensive of losing their provision-ground. The House could not in justice listen to the proposition.
Mr. O'Connellsupported the Amendment. He was glad to find, that the House had thrown off the hypocrisy of apprenticeships, when speaking of the negroes under the changed circumstances which this Bill proposed to create. They now talked of slaves, when speaking of the blacks in their new condition, and not as they had hypocritically done for some days, of apprentices. The truth was, that they would still be slaves, and he was, therefore, glad that the House had thrown off its hypocrisy, and called them by their right name. As to what the hon. member for Carlisle had said of The Anti-Slavery Reporter, nothing could be more unfounded. He (Mr. O'Connell) was a member of the Anti-Slavery Society, and he would consent to give up that publication, if the hon. Member could support his allegation. Let the hon. Member take four volumes of that work already published, let him compare the statements in that work with the parliamentary documents on which they purported to be founded, and then let him point out a single case which would sustain his charge of exaggeration or misrepresentation, and he would at once give up the work. He challenged him to do this; he defied him to this; and if he could not, he trusted that the House would hear no more of the exaggerations or misrepresentations of The Anti-Slavery Reporter. As to the Amendment, he believed it to be of the utmost importance. It proposed to introduce a new and efficient stimulant to labour. It substituted wages for coercion, and was, therefore, the best calculated to ensure the industry of the emancipated slaves. The only impediment that had hitherto been found in the way of emancipating the slaves, was their indolence, or indisposition to labour. It had, however, always been said: "Oh, emancipate the slave, leave him at liberty to labour or not to labour, as he pleases, and there will be an end to the cultivation of the West-Indian colonies." But, what said the hon. member for Carlisle? He said, that the slaves were in the enjoyment of a very large amount of comfort, provided for them by their owners; that they were sleek, well fed, and fat; that they possessed, in fact, and as slaves, every-
66
thing they could desire; and yet, so fond were they of work—so desirous of labour—that even in these circumstances of comfort and plenty, they absolutely deprived themselves of rest, and by continuous and persevering labour accumulated 100 l. or 200 l. Why, could anything stronger in favour of emancipation be urged by its most zealous
advocates? Here were the slaves so industrious, so desirous of labour, as to give themselves to it without any compulsion; and when they were not at all dependent upon it for their comfort or enjoyment! Now, as to the nature of the Amendment, what was it? What was there in it so unreasonable and unjust as it had been represented to be? It had been stated in the evidence laid before the House most distinctly, that the earnings of a slave were about 3s. 4d. a-day (that was in the island of Jamaica; in some other colonies it was not so much),—but in the island of Jamaica the slave earned for his master about 3s. 4d. a-day. Well, the Amendment of the hon. member for Weymouth proposed, that of this 3s. 4d.—that was about 2s. currency—the slave should receive 6d. a day, or one-fourth of the amount, in the shape of wages, of course subject to such regulations as the nature and justice of the case might require. He did not see how this could be reasonably objected to; but he saw, on the other hand, that it would furnish the most powerful incentive to labour that could be furnished to the slave. The hon. and learned Member concluded by expressing his determination to support the Amendment.
Mr. Secretary Stanleysaid, that giving the apprentices 6d. a-day by law, would be no temptation or inducement to them to labour. If the master were obliged to pay them 6d. every day, no matter whether they worked well or ill, then there was no stimulant to labour at all. Under the regulations proposed by the present Bill, the master could pay his apprentice what he contracted for; and he had no doubt at all, that such contracts would be entered into. But if the master were compelled to pay his apprentices, whether they worked well or ill, or not at all, it would be introducing a regulation to encourage not labour but idleness.
Lord Hawicksuggested, that the allowances to slaves should be equalised in all the colonies. There at present existed

67
nothing like equality in that respect; for some masters only gave their slaves two herrings and a pint of rice a day, while others gave them a very liberal allowance; in different islands of course. The great fault of the Bill was, that his right hon. friend, its framer, had adopted as its basis the colonial legislative regulations with all their imperfections.
Mr. Gordonwould ask his noble friend where he was to find the circulating medium in the colonies to pay the sums proposed by him as wages to the negroes?
Mr. Ewart Gladstonesaid, the proposition of the noble Lord would subject the planters to an additional charge "of 3,000,000 l. a-year, and make the slaves idle.
Lord Howicksaid, that the prescribed time would only amount to four days and a-half a-week, and the wages would be only 5l. or 6l. a-year.
Mr. Secretary Stanley's Amendment agreed to.
The House resumed; the Committee to sit again.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.
Mr. O'Connell, after observing that his object was not to punish the printer, but to get at the proprietors, moved that the Order of the Day for the attendance at the Bar of John Joseph Lawson, and James William Lawson, be read.
Mr. Methuenrose for the purpose of moving, that the said Order be discharged. In taking this step, he was not actuated by any feeling of disrespect towards the hon. and learned member for Dublin, He had no doubt that the hon. and learned Member thought, that he was doing his duty in the course which he had pursued and was pursuing; but he (Mr. Methuen) also had a duty to perform as a Member of that House; and he felt most conscientiously, that he was called upon in the discharge of that duty, to object to the House being placed in a situation which might, perhaps, prove to be one of great difficulty; a situation which the House had always avoided to be placed in, whenever it was possible to avoid it; and which, he hoped, they would always continue to avoid, unless circumstances of an imperative nature should require them to dootherwise. Undoubtedly he did not think that they were at all called upon, on the present occasion, to place themselves in
68
that situation. And first, with respect to the propriety and expediency of calling the printer to the Bar. It was impossible that the printer could be the offending party. In one point of view, perhaps, the reporters might be termed the servants of the printer, for the time during which they were engaged; but they could not be considered as his slaves. Nor was it possible that the printer could compel those gentlemen to act in any way in which they might not choose to act. He begged leave also to observe, that the subject of this dispute did not originate within the walls of that House. It originated at a time when the hon. and learned member for Dublin was not acting in the capacity of a Member of Parliament, but in that of a private individual; and he must protest against their being called upon to interfere in any private dispute in which the hon. and learned member for Dublin might happen to be involved, and with Which that House could have nothing whatever to do. The hon. and learned Member complained of a breach of the privlleges of that House. But his proposition involved a strange coutradiction. How had a breach of the privileges of that House been committed? It was a breach of the privileges of that House to report their proceedings at all. But it was not of that that the hon. and learned Member complained. The hon. and learned Member complained not that the proceedings, of that House had been repotted, but that they had not been reported. He (Mr. Methuen) Was perfectly aware that the House had the power, and he thought properly had the power, of defending its own privileges. Their power in that respect was very great, and, therefore, it ought to be exercised with caution—
"——'tls excellent
To have a giant's strength;
But tyrannous to use it like a giant."
He must say, that to resort to the privileges of the House in the present case, would be not merely an act of injustice towards the parties in question, but a most unwise and impolitic proceeding on the part of the House itself. The hon. and learned member for Dublin complained of partial reporting. But, Unless his (Mr. Methuen's) information was incorrect (and he was perfectly satisfied that it was not so), there was no Member in that House who had profitted so much from partial reporting as the

69
hon. and learned member for Dublin himself. He was given to understand that an Irish newspaper, called The Tralee Mercury (the hon. and learned Member smiled; but he (Mr. Methuen) had no doubt that the information which he had received on this subject was perfectly correct)—and three Dublin papers—of course he did riot suppose that they were employed by the hon. and learned Gentleman—throughout the whole of the present Session, had reported fully the speeches of the hon. and learned member for Dublin, but had not given a word of the triumphant answers made to those speeches by the right hon. Gentleman, who was now the Secretary of State for the Colonial Department. That this was true he had been informed on excellent authority. If so, it was impossible for him to suppose but that the hon. and learned Member must have Seen those papers. But the House had not had any complaint of partial reporting on that account. One word with respect to
the reporters. He did not mean to justify the course which they had taken. But human nature was frail; and he put it to the House whether the Words which had been used by the hon. and learned member for Dublin, "deliberate falsehood," were not calculated to rouse all the warmest feelings of a man and a gentleman. He had made inquiry into the character of those gentlemen; and he had good reason to believe that they were gentlemen of education and integrity; many of them had been brought up to the Bar; and there were many and proud instances of individuals of the body having risen to high and well deserved honours. At the same time that he thought it exceedingly impolitic on the part of the hon. and learned member for Dublin to bring forward this question, he also thought it exceedingly unnecessary, as every hon. member must feel how great the pressure of public business was at the present moment. And after all the attention which had been bestowed during the Session to the consideration of Irish affairs, he really did not think that the hon. and learned member for Dublin was entided to take up their time with the consideration of his private quarrels. He lamented, therefore, the proposition which had been made to the House. Coming from the hon. and learned member for Dublin, it especially surprised him, for
70
to him it appeared to be an act of tyranny, and there was no man in that House who had the word "liberty" more frequently on his lips than the hon. and learned member for Dublin. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would give one practical proof of his love of liberty, by consenting to discharge the present Order of the Day, before the House went to a division upon the question, he would do more to gratify the real lovers of liberty than by all the declamation in the world. He must apologise to the House for having detained them so long. He disclaimed all feelings of a personal nature. He wished that, consistently with his sense of duty, he could have avoided the task which he had undertaken; but he could not consent to allow the House to be brought into a situation of difficulty, from which it might find it exceedingly difficult to extricate itself.
Mr. Robinsonhad great pleasure in seconding the Motion for the discharge of the Order of the Day. He agreed with the hon. Member who had just spoken, that, whatever might be the case at present, this dispute originated in an occurrence with which that House was in no way connected, and which in no way involved any of their privileges. Without, therefore, vindicating in the slightest manlier the course which had been pursued by the Reporters, he was perfectly prepared to say, that in his opinion the House would take a very unwise course, if it were prevailed upon to adopt the proposition made to it by the hon. and learned member for Dublin. It was the object of the hon. and learned Gentleman to call the proprietors of one of the London newspapers to the Bar, for reporting the proceedings of that House. It was impossible for him (Mr. Robinson) to deny that that was a breach of privilege. But he begged to ask the hon. and learned member for Dublin with what propriety he could proceed to punish the proprietors of one of the papers, without following up that proceeding by calling all the proprietors of all the papers to the Bar, for they were all equally guilty? He knew that the House had occasionally pursued the course recommended by the hon. and learned member for Dublin. He believed that the last time at which a question of this sort had been brought before the House was in 1771, when the House was prevailed upon to summon the printer and

71
publisher of two papers, in which a report of the proceedings of the House had appeared. And although there was at that time no question, any more than there was now, that it was a breach of the privileges of that House, the consequence was that the proceeding (proposed, he believed, by Colonel Onslow) involved the House on the 8th of February in a perplexity, from which it was unable to disentangle itself before the 30th of April. Gentlemen might indeed well smile. But the period to which he alluded was filled up with angry debates, to the complete interruption of public business, and leading to popular commotion, and eventually to the commitment of two Members of that House to the Tower; and the House was glad to get out of the business by means not altogether consistent with the maintenance of its dignity. The complaint made by the hon. and learned member for Dublin was, not that he had been reported, but that he had not been reported. He (Mr. Robinson) did not mean to defend the course which had been pursued by the newspapers towards the hon. and learned Gentleman. But if the hon. and learned Gentleman had not been reported, how many hon. Members might make the same complaint? And although the hon. and learned Gentleman might suppose that he had great claims to peculiar attention in the reports of Parliamentary proceedings, he (Mr. Robinson) must beg leave to remind the hon. and learned Member, that it was important for the humblest Member in the House to have his sentiments reported, with reference to his constituents, and to enable him to justify the course which he pursued in that House. One of the hon. and learned Gentleman's complaints was, that a speech of his had been put into a single line. Why, he had seen three speeches huddled together in the most extraordinary manner in a single line; but the Members who were so treated, had not thought it worth their while to make any complaint upon the subject. He hoped, therefore, that the House would not be prevailed upon to adopt the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposition. Every other hon. Member in that House, as well as the hon. and learned member for Dublin, was liable to have his sentiments misstated by accident or mistake. For he cordially concurred in the opinion, that not only were the reports of the debates in that House given with
72
wonderful fidelity, but that their general accuracy was quite surprising. Of all men in that House, the hon. and learned member for Dublin was the last who ought to have made any complaint upon this subject. He (Mr. Robinson) implored the House to consider well before they agreed to the hon. and learned Gentleman's Motion; for he was convinced, that if they adopted it they would find themselves in a situation which would neither add to the dignity of their proceedings nor elevate their own character out of doors.
Mr. O'Connellhad heard the speech of the hon. member for Wiltshire with very considerable surprise. When he commenced the controversy he had complained that the reports of the present Session were to his own knowledge exceedingly defective, and to his knowledge also designedly false; and then the kindness of the hon. Member induced him to applaud him ["No, no," from Mr. Methuen.] He understood that hon. Member had said as much as that he was misreported.
Mr. Methuendeclared he had said no such thing.
Mr. O'Connellhad thought that was the case. The hon. Member had, however, said he (Mr. O'Connell) had some control over the Tralee Mercury.
Mr. Methuen: I declare I did not say so. I said—but I am in the recollection of the House, and will not repeat it.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, he had heard the hon. Member say so, if the House did not. But the Tralee Mercury had nothing to do with it.
Mr. Methuenobserved, that what he had said was, that the hon. and learned Member's speeches were reported in that paper and not the speeches of his opponents.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, with respect to the three Dublin papers, only one of them had a reporter in London, and that paper was opposed to him. As for himself he should be glad to see all he said published, if it were but done fairly. The hon. Member said truly, that none spoke more in favour of liberty than he did. It was because he had liberty in his heart. But there was a despotism and a tyranny exercised towards this House, and on the part of hon. Members there was a shrinking which he was sorry to see. It was because he hated despotism that he was determined to persevere, and he would persevere, until the present privileges of the House were so

73
ludicrous, that no man would afterwards talk of the dignity of the House. When he used the term "designedly false," it was at a public meeting, at which reporters were present, and might have contradicted him if they had pleased—he would have taken care to get them a hearing. They had all the newspapers at their command, and might have contradicted him and assailed him in any way they pleased. The cause of the quarrel was out of the House, but the reporters had attacked him by declaring (as was stated in The Times) that they would not report what he said in that House. By the privileges of the House, no publication could take place, except by the permission of the Speaker, nor could any evidence of Committees of the House be published without his permission. He (Mr. O'Connell) should be very glad that the Debates of that House should go fully abroad, but then they should also be under the correction of the Speaker. It was not right that reports of what was said in that House should be incorrect; they ought to be correct if given at all. If papers went on publishing the business of Parliament, and that incorrectly or falsely, the only remedy was to prevent all reporting. An hon. Member had spoken of the infringement of the liberty enjoyed under sufferance by the Press: he should like to be told if it was necessary he should submit to the infringement of his liberty. The King could not control the liberty he enjoyed; nor could the House of Lords nor the Judges control it; and he would ask the House if it would permit this system of reporting to establish itself as a higher tribunal than that of the King, Lords, and Commons, or the laws of the land? The power possessed by the Press at present was such as it ought not to possess. It had been accumulated by a monopoly of the Press, arising out of excessive taxation, and to so great an extent, that it required a fortune to establish anything in competition. This monopoly was now become a most domineering aristocracy, and it was said, that nothing could put it down; but he had put his hand to the business, and he would try. The reporters boasted that they had succeeded in putting down some of the greatest men the country had produced, that they had overcome a member of the present Administration—nay, that they had overcome the Lord Chancellor himself, and they added to the list the
74
names of Tierney and Wyndham, the last of whom had conciliated them at the end by a dinner. But they should not put him down, and that they would find. It was said, that the time of the House had been taken up with Ireland; but what blessings had the House conferred upon her? She had rather cause to regret than appreciate those attentions. He would have the House not to be misled on this question; but calmly to consider that if its proceedings were not fairly reported in any paper, that that paper was not worthy the sufferance of reporting at all. He wanted to know who were the managers of The Times, the reporters or the proprietors. He would persevere, therefore, in the course he had entered upon, and would not abandon it till he had put an end to that tyranny which domineered over the House and the country.
Colonel Evanssaid, that on several occasions he had found it necessary to differ from the hon. and learned member for Dublin, and the present occasion was one of that number. He was surprised that the hon. and learned Member should place so humble an estimate upon his own character in this matter. He recollected having once heard a friend of his make use of a very strong assertion respecting the hon. and learned member for Dublin—he had said, that he conceived, that the hon. and learned Member had rendered more signal services to his country than the King, Lords, and Commons. Now, he never saw an occasion on which a Gentleman had so far forgotten the situation which he held in the estimation of his fellow countrymen as the hon. and learned Gentleman had just done. When the hon. and learned Gentleman placed himself in opposition to the reporters, he surely could not have looked back upon his own career; a character like his was not at the mercy of the reporters. Gentlemen of character inferior to that of the hon. and learned Member were not at their mercy. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed greatly to overrate the power and influence of the newspapers. The power and influence of a newspaper consisted in its fidelity and accuracy of information, and even The Times, potent as it was, would lose all its present power and influence if it ceased to remember its duty to the public. He should not himself have had the power of addressing the House at all had it de-

75
pended upon that newspaper, for it had advocated his defeat upon two distinct and separate occasions. Indeed, The Times and the Morning Chronicle had advocated the cause of every candidate who bad been defeated since the last general election. Did not that circumstance prove that those papers had no influence save when their power was exercised with justice? They had recently been advocating the claims of an hon. Member of that House to a judicial office in the city of London. Every one who knew the character of that hon. Gentleman knew that he had every qualification to deserve success. He had failed, however, in consequence he believed of their recommendation, in carrying his election, and been triumphed over by a gentleman of much inferior ability. He regretted very much, when, about a week ago, the hon. and learned member had alluded to the conduct of the reporters towards him, he regretted it, he repeated, very much; yet he thought that it was possible that public good might arise from it. He regretted for the sake of his hon. and learned friend, that he had entered into such a contest with any body of men, and he said this without wishing to depreciate the body with whom the hon. and learned Member was contending. He thought that his hon. and learned friend had forgotten the situation which he held in the public mind. He thought that it would be necessary for the House to consider the nature of their privileges, which placed it at the absolute will of any individual Member to exclude strangers from the gallery. Some of them were quite obsolete, especially that which left this power at the caprice and will of any Member. The remedy for the partiality at present complained of would be found in the removal of those taxes on knowledge which the noble Lord on the other side of the House had censured when in opposition, and had promised to repeal. He thought that competition in literary affairs, as well as in commercial and other public affairs, unembarrassed by taxes, would ensure to the public a due report of the proceedings of that House. He did not consider this as a contest between the hon. and learned member for Dublin and the Press, for the public had an interest as well as the newspapers in having the speeches of its Representatives well reported. The vanity of Members might be consulted in
76
the reports of their speeches, (he was aware that he himself made very bad ones)—the report of those speeches might not be of interest—still, however, he thought it incumbent that the arguments of the leading men in that House, and especially of one who had created for himself an historical memory, should be conveyed with fidelity to the public. He therefore, suggested, with all deference to the hon. and learned Member, that he should allow this matter to pass off. No newspaper could long venture to omit the hon. and learned Member's speeches. He therefore would support the proposition of the hon. member for Wiltshire for the withdrawal of the present Motion. He would move, at some future stage, a substantive Motion that the power of clearing the gallery upon the Motion of a single Member should be referred to the consideration of a Select Committee.
Sir Robert Inglissaid, the hon. and learned member for Dublin had placed himself and the House in a false position, for he had forgotten that the Members sat there under the fiction, that nobody saw them—nobody heard them there. The complaint here was, not that the printers of The Times had violated the privileges of that House, but that they had not violated them. They had not intimated their intention of publishing what hon. Members said; on the contrary, they had declared that, so far as the hon. and learned member for Dublin was concerned, they would never commit a violation of the privileges of the House by publishing his speeches. Now, was not that the sum and substance of the complaint of the hon. and learned Gentleman? It had been stated by the hon. member for Worcester, that this inconvenience had befallen many of the Gentlemen who then heard him. It certainly had befallen him that what he had said a few days ago—he did not complain of it—upon the East-India question, had not gone forth. In the last fortnight he had spoken half a dozen times, and all notice of what he had said had been omitted in the reports. He did not complain of this, for the fact was, that it was physically impossible, that in the space allotted to different matters of this kind in a newspaper, such as foreign correspondence, law reports, and commercial information, you could bring together all that was necessary and desirable for every class of readers.

77
Those, therefore, who had to administer to the taste of all must be permitted to make a selection. Ladies, as well as gentlemen, were purchasers of newspapers. Some of them took them in for the birthday dresses, and thus it often happened that debates of importance to the country were sacrificed to make way for the description of a milliner's finery. The hon. member for Dublin, he repeated, had placed himself in an awkward situation. If the printer were at the Bar, was it possible for the Speaker, however great his parliamentary knowledge was, to devise a formal speech to place before him the nature of the offence which he had committed? The printer was not the offender. The offenders were the reporters; but he was perfectly sure that the object of the present motion was to punish them, not for a breach of privilege which they had committed, but for a breach of privilege which they had not committed. The hon. and learned Member had said, that they were now living under the irresponsible despotism of the reporters. He hoped, that those who knew him did not suppose that he was a man likely to submit to such despotism. He hoped, that the House would recollect that some time ago he had attacked, not these reluctantes dracones, the reporters, but the editors of the papers themselves. He had attacked those, who commented on the proceedings of the House, and who had called a certain portion of them the lacqueys of the Peers. He felt for one, that he did not deserve such language, and, therefore, he had deemed it his duty to bring the editor of The Times to the Bar of that House. He should never shrink from doing that which he conceived to be his duty, nor from bringing those who attacked the privileges of Parliament in that way before its Bar. He agreed in the suggestion of the hon. member for North Wiltshire, for he felt, that, if the present Motion were carried, and the printer placed at their Bar, the House would see the same thing occur again, which the hon. member for Worcester had told them occurred sixty years ago, and thus the rest of the Session be wasted, not in compelling individuals to conform to the rules of the House, but in compelling them to violate all those rules systematically. Now, he thought, that, in a case like this, the House ought to adopt the least difficulty. He had seen The Times of that day, and he had read in it
78
a letter from the individual who had been attacked by name on Friday last. The gentleman in question he had never seen, but he had made reference to his friendship with Sir James Mackintosh; and when he said, that any man who was honoured with the friendship of Sir James Mackintosh, might be considered as the equal of the hon. and learned Gentleman, he meant no offence to him. He repeated, that he had never seen that individual, but if it were as he said, that he was the friend of Sir James Mackintosh, he was equal to any Gentleman in that House, and, therefore, some allowance ought to be made for the irritated feelings of such a man. When he was informed that the hon. and learned Member had stated, that he had performed his duty in an improper manner, and had stated that which was false—
Mr. O'Connell: Yes; a deliberate falsehood.
Sir Robert Inglis: Well, be it as the hon. Member said; still great allowance must be made for the irritated feelings of that gentleman. The offence which the hon. and learned
Gentleman gave was not given in the exercise of his parliamentary privileges, but had occurred in a speech which he had delivered elsewhere. Whilst the words "parliamentary privilege" was in his mouth, he could not help looking back to the case of Sir Francis Burdett. He could not but feel that the privileges of that House—which authorized them to attack private persons, and then to act as judges in their own cause, which authorized them to punish summarily all libels upon themselves, and to vent, without fear or shame, libel upon others—were privileges which ought to be exercised with great caution. Whilst the House retained the power of punishing men thus summarily for libels on its proceedings, it should be cautious how it proceeded in defending language which attacked the character and livelihood of those who were as entirely gentlemen as any Member of the House. In using that language he trusted that he was not yielding to the despotism of the Press—he hoped that he should not be considered as conciliating its favour; but the House was in a difficulty, and the hon. and learned Member had placed it in that difficulty; and though he saw some difficulty ill the course proposed by the hon. member for North Wiltshire, so far as it regarded the hon. and learned Member,

79
he should support the less of two difficulties which now presented themselves to their consideration.
Mr. Harveythought that, notwithstanding the suggestions which had been offered to the House, there was a difficulty in this question not easily to be surmounted. The substantive matter of this complaint was two-fold—it involved a great public as well as a personal principle; with the public principle he would not deal at present; but so far as the matter was personal, he would say, that after having read the statement of Mr. Eugene Nugent, and heard the charge of Mr. O'Connell, he considered that no difficulty could present itself to their considering it. There was nothing to do but to have the discussion on it referred—and he thought that it might easily be referred—to any of the Gentlemen who had just addressed the House; for, after all, it was a personal question, and nothing but a personal question; and if he were expected, in common with all the Members who then heard him, to adjudicate on the subject, he should look upon it in that light, and in no other. As there had been an appeal made to the House with great candour by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and as the accusation which had been made by him had been repelled in terms which were equally unequivocal by the party accused, who stated that he was as incapable of such misconduct as the party who accused him, the adjudication must turn on the truth of their respective statements. It had been well observed by the hon. and gallant member for Westminster, that good frequently sprung out of inconvenience; and though he agreed that it might be impossible to report verbatim all that occurred in that House, the mere circumstance of attempting it would soon work its own cure; for if every Member were to address the House under the conviction that every word which he uttered in the House would appear the next morning in the newspapers, no course could be so effective; and instead of having many Gentlemen complaining that the reporters had not done them sufficient justice, and upbraiding the reporters for not having reported them at length enough, they should have them moving that the masters of those reporters be called to the bar for sending forth their sentiments to the world too amply. For his own part, he had never had any personal communication
80
with the reporters; he had never on any occasion corrected his own speeches; and he had had occasion to think, that a slight measure, and only a slight measure, of justice, had been dealt out to him. He did not, however, complain. He recollected that he had once had occasion to communicate with a reporter, in consequence of a note which one of them had written to him for certain documents connected with his speech on the Woods and Forests. He had gone into the gallery, and in a small ante-room he found several of them together. He was induced to ask them how it happened, that speeches which he read in the morning had so little coincidence in point of extent with the speeches he heard over night, and one of them answered him, and he believed that there was great good sense in the observation; "Do you wish the newspapers to write themselves down? If we stated to the public one-half the nonsense"—he believed that was the word—"which is spoken in that House, we should soon write ourselves out of existence"; and his experience had subsequently led him to concur in the correctness of that reply. His hon. friend, the member for Sheffield, had suggested that great advantage would be derived if the speeches of hon. Members were limited to a quarter of an hour's duration. He thought that a good suggestion. It might be done by the Chairman, whose despotism they all willingly acknowledged, having a glass at one side of him and a bell at the other, and by the fourth estate, whose despotism they all refused to recognize, having a similar chronometer near them. Then, with the exception of the opening speeches of the hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial benches, who were supposed to be all orators as well as statesmen, and with the exception of hon. Gentlemen who thought it necessary to redeem themselves in the opinion of their constituents by an opening speech in redemption of their pledges at the hustings—with the exception, he repeated, of these great opening displays, if all other Members were reduced to limit their speeches to a quarter of an hour, he was sure that they would be better thought of by the reporters, and would appear better in the mirror of their debates. "I should therefore recommend (said the hon. Member) that you, Sir, should have an hour glass by the side of your chair, or rather a glass for a quarter of an hour, on one side of your chair, and a

81
bell on the other, that when the quarter of an hour had elapsed by your glass, you should touch your bell, and then, if the papers contained a similar memorial to that inserted now, when the hour of three o'clock comes, and when the Speaker is said on that account to leave the Chair—no matter what may be the importance of the subject—why then, Sir, when any hon. Member was in the highest flights of his oratorical fancy, he would at once be let down, on the assurance that his sand had run out. These are the considerations that strike my mind on the subject now immediately before us. As far as the principle of the matter is concerned, I should beg leave to offer a suggestion, which I trust will not be the less acceptable because it is novel. I have no doubt that my hon. and learned friend thinks he has cause to complain: he says, 'Let me have a hearing—give me a Committee, and I will show that I have been wilfully misrepresented.' If so, why let him have his Committee, and the matter will drop there. If the charge is made out, Mr. Nugent will not stand quite as well as I could wish; and we may send our compliments to Mrs. Brodie, and say that her gentleman has not conducted himself as he ought. His connexion with the House, that is, his connexion with the paper, would cease. Though I think, Sir, that this question, as a personal question, ought to be thus got rid of, yet, with respect to the other part of the question, I think we should, adverting to our own character, preserve that character more pure, and add to the dignity of our deliberations, if we could rid ourselves of our habit of talking, and confine ourselves to the substance, and length will then be no longer the test of merit. Now, however, it is so—for whenever an hon. Member is speaking on a particular subject, and I am coming down to the House and meet some hon. Gentleman coming up from it, and I ask who is speaking and how—the answer often is, 'Oh, pretty well—he has only been speaking forty minutes.' The length of a speech is now the test of its excellence. I do not think it ought to be. In my mind he is the greatest man who is able to put the greatest number of facts in the fewest words, and occupy the House for the shortest time. If that were the test for us, I think we should show our good sense more than we do now, and we should not have reason to be alarmed
82
with the prospect of the Session lasting till September."
Sir Matthew White Ridleywished to relieve himself from the apparent inconsistency of now voting against a measure he had formerly supported. He should do so because, as the case now appeared, it did not seem to him to be one for the interference of the House. The expression of their sentiments by the reporters for The Times had reference to what the hon. and learned member for Dublin had stated elsewhere, and not in that House, as he had at first understood. The hon. and learned Member had stated, that the reporters had mirepresented him. He thought that, if that was a statement made in that House, that no person should presume to call on the hon. Member for words uttered in that place—but when he found that they alluded to a circumstance which had taken place at a tavern dinner, he thought that, calling on him in respect of words so uttered, was not a breach of privilege. That they were unwise in determining not to report the speches of the hon. and learned member he did not doubt; but, under the circumstances he had stated, he was at a loss to conceive that what they said could be construed into a breach of privilege; and he was at a loss to know how their determination could be met by that House. He should, therefore, vote against the Motion.
Mr. O'Dwyersaid, that the excellent speech of the hon. Member near him (Mr. Harvey) was such as might have been expected from him if he had been Counsel for The Times in a Court of Law, and had had a brief to defend the paper; but he must say, that he did not think the hon. Member had treated the subject with great good sense. No doubt the hon. Member would be rewarded for the exhibition of to-day—he would be described as having sensibly and judiciously addressed the House; and no doubt, too, it would be stated, that the hon. Member had sat down amidst loud and long-continued laughter and cheering; and the hon. member for Dublin would have his speech compressed into one line. If anything whatever were reported of him, his speech would no doubt be represented in one line, and use would be made of the editorial power to crush him. It was not the question whether reporters should be allowed to report in that House, but whether they should have a power to

83
exercise as they pleased in suppressing the speeches of hon. Members. In his mind the suppressio veri was equal to the suggestio falsi. It was as bad that an individual should depend on their caprice as to whether they would insert his speeches or not, as it would be if they put into his mouth words which he had never uttered. He did not wish to curtail the privileges of the Press; but it was most important that Members of that House, who were not sufficiently strong to bear up against this despotism, should be supported. The question would be set at rest by their vote on this evening; if they negatived the Motion, the House could not again assert its privileges. He implored them to negative the proposition, but at that very moment they would bind themselves permissively to throw open that gallery to the public. He was free to admit that the public should be admitted; but as the matter now stood they must remember that if they negatived the proposition, they could not again exercise the power now invoked, nor ever again bring a printer to the Bar of that House. They might say that the time was now come when these matters ought to be free from the exercise of all arbitrary power. In that he agreed with them; but while the Standing Order was on their books, he did not see how they could negative the Motion.
Mr. Humesaid, that, having been the person who had seconded this Motion, he trusted he should be indulged with the opportunity of stating the view he took of this question. He was not sorry for the difficulty they were now placed in. He had before pointed out the folly of the regulation; but he had been answered, that every rule of that House was founded in true wisdom, and that the check which the Standing Order gave them on the proceedings of the Press ought not to be removed. What was the hon. and learned member for Dublin now doing? Why, he was keeping up the regulations of that House. Was it fit they should be kept up? He said no; and yet there was no mode of showing their absurdity but the manner in which the hon. Member had acted. It was not a question of getting rid of the regulations; but the question was, whether that rule, which gave the power to a single individual to call a person who published their Debates to the Bar of that House, should be acted on. He thought it should not; and the way
84
to get out of the difficulty was, to adjourn this question, to bring their standing rule under the consideration of a Committee, and to withdraw it; and then no one could again place the House in this position. If they chose to waive the question of publishing their Debates, which he thought it was wise they should do, then he asked, whether they did not desire that their Debates should be honestly and fairly given? He would not enter into the personal question between Mr. Nugent and Mr. O'Connell. The question for the consideration of the House stood upon broad public grounds; and if the House desired that their Standing Order should be maintained, his hon. and learned friend might go on, and deprive the public of knowing anything which passed in that House, He apprehended, that if they went on under this order they must exclude all or none. Either they must not allow their Debates to be published at all, or they must allow every person to come in, and then they could have no right to complain. Let them repeal their own Standing Order, and leave the newspapers. He wished to mention a matter which he had just heard. It was this, some of their Debates had been lately very much curtailed. The reporters were occupied in the other House, and that accounted for the shortness of some of their Debates. He appealed to the noble Lord opposite, whether it would not be better to adjourn this question, to take the Standing Order into consideration, to annul it, and to leave the question open. Then, let an authorised reporter be appointed to give their Debates. That scheme appeared to him practicable; but the idea that the hon. member for Dublin should give up his Motion, while the Standing Order remained, was preposterous.
Mr. Bannermanwished to make a short statement on behalf of the reporters of the Morning Papers. He desired to say, on their behalf, that they denied most positively the charges of wilful misrepresentation brought against them by the hon. member for Dublin, and they confidently appealed to that House for the truth of that denial; at the same time they were aware of the inconvenience that arose from the resolution of suppressing the speech of any Member, and they had only adopted it for the purpose of enabling them to procure a public contradiction in that House of the charges brought against

85
them by the hon. member for Dublin. He should now only add, that he was glad to see the hon. Member was beginning to break the neck of newspaper monopoly, by entering into competition with them himself, and beginning to be a newspaper proprietor; and if the hon. Member would withdraw the present Motion, he would subscribe to the paper.
Mr. O'Connelldenied, that he had had or should have anything to do with being the proprietor of a newspaper.
Mr. Bannerman: Why, he had received a resolution to that effect, signed by the hon. Member.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that he only signed it as the Chairman of a meeting.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that it would well become the House to consider, before they took the first step, to what it must lead. At the same time he perfectly saw the nature of the complaint. The hon. and learned Member admitted, that the privileges of that House were not observed by the reporters—that they connived at the non-observance of them—that he was ready to acquiesce in that non-observance; but then he insisted that the reports should be impartially given. The question, however, was, whether the course the hon. Member proposed to pursue, would enforce that impartiality. The hon. and learned Gentleman had skilfully tried to prevent any man from taking a different view of the subject from himself, by calling that difference of opinion "a shrinking." He did not know whether he (Sir Robert Peel) was to be accused of shrinking under the despotism; but he certainly differed from the hon. and learned Gentleman on this subject. For himself, he had been unpopular with almost all parts of the Press, but at the same time nothing had deterred him from stating what was true. He had been twenty years in Parliament, and he had never had reason to complain of any wilful misrepresentation, or omission amounting to anything like a misrepresentation; and he had never had any communication with the gentlemen who reported the Debates, beyond once or twice furnishing them with documents which he had referred to in the course of his speech. He thought, on the whole, looking at the necessity of having these reports, both in that and the other House of Parliament, considering the intention of supplying the public with a general transcript of what took place in the two Houses, that the
86
task thus undertaken was performed with great impartiality and fidelity. He would mention another circumstance. He had been in office fifteen years, and he had never received any communication directly or indirectly from any gentleman connected with the newspapers—and he thought it highly creditable to the body—asking for a single favour, on condition of placing his speeches in a favourable light. Whatever testimony, therefore, he bore to their conduct, had this recommendation, that it was completely impartial. He must say, when the hon. and learned Member stated himself to possess a power in that House which should not be controlled by King, Lords, or Judges, the hon. Member ought to recollect, that because he did possess such a power, for the exercise of which he was completely irresponsible, he should use it temperately. If the hon. Member
spoke of the whole body of reporters as giving his speeches not only not correctly, but in a manner decidedly false. [Mr. O'Connell only alluded to The Times.] He must be allowed to speak from his recollection—the charge was general.
Mr. O'Connellintended to confine his remarks to the Paper that was now before them.
Sir Robert Peel: Then why did the hon. and learned Member first bring forward a Motion against The Morning Chronicle? He understood that there were forty or fifty reporters, some of them holding commissions in the Army and Navy, several at the Bar, most of them having received an academical education, and occupying, therefore, the situation of gentlemen. They naturally felt sore at the imputation of "designed, deliberate falsehood." He was bound to say this in their vindication. At the same lime he could not think that any wrong they might endure from the hon. and learned Member could justify them in suppressing his speeches. They were, though not officially or publicly recognised as such, yet they were, in fact, public servants—they entered into an implied engagement, of fidelity in their reports, not only with that House, but with the public; and whatever wrong they might have reason to complain of from an individual Member, they ought to recollect that they had a paramount duty to discharge to that House and the public, and ought not to make a private quarrel with any individual a pretext for the neglect

87
of that duty. If the hon. and learned Member would only pause awhile, he would have complete justice rendered him. What was the volume to which he had referred?—It was The Mirror of Parliament. Did he complain of that?—No. The reporters for that publication had not entered into any resolution to suppress his speeches; and a month would not elapse without that or another publication being more sought after; or some other newspaper would be established, and do justice to the hon. Member. The Motion was, that the printer should be brought to the Bar. It was material to consider what would take place when he came there. The charge against him would be perfectly intelligible—namely, that he had not given a fair and full report of the debates. It savoured rather of a Jest to say, as had been said, that the complaint would be, that the reporter had not violated their privileges. The complaint would be, that professing to report their debates, he did not act impartially. But what assurance could they exact from him? A promise that he would publish all the debates correctly. Would it be possible, as their Orders now stood, to exact such an assurance? Could the Speaker require from the reporter a pledge that he would fairly and impartially report debates—the reporting of which at all was a manifest breach of the privileges of that House? The hon. Gentleman had the power in his own hands—he might clear the gallery; and if he did anything, that was what he ought to do. The hon. Member said he would do it; then let him do it manfully in the first instance. They were about to call before them one proprietor of a newspaper. Observe what would be the consequence of their embarking on this perilous voyage. The hon. Member said, he would inquire whether the reporters were masters or servants; and if servants, he should insist on their dismissal by the proprietors who employed them. He threatened to begin with The Times newspaper, and pursue the same course with all the others. Was this a very seemly contest for the House of Commons to engage in? Was it fitting that the House should undertake to prescribe to newspaper proprietors whom they might or might not employ as reporters? The hon. Member might delight in such contests, but the House had better pause before they committed themselves as parties to them. The hon. Member, if
88
he wished to resort to the step of stopping the publication of the debates, had only to do that which had been done before—to notice the presence of strangers in the gallery, and exclude them. That was the natural and proper course. In his opinion the hon. Gentleman would be better advised; if he would pause altogether, he would shortly find ample justice done to him by competition—by desire to supply the public with information. He, for one, should object to the House of Commons being brought into collision with the editors of newspapers. By attempting to dictate to them the mode of managing their concerns, and the persons they were to employ, the House of Commons would be undertaking a task they could not execute, and assuming a power which they did not rightfully possess.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the right hon. Baronet had very fairly stated, that the House ought to take care before it involved itself in the commencement of a contest out of which it would be impossible to extricate itself with honour. Where this question of privilege had been brought into action, there always had been found a very considerable difficulty. He must say, that whatever had been the difficulties which had occurred before, they must have been very small in comparison to those which in this case must arise, for the very fact was not a breach of privilege, but a desire that the privilege should be broken, and an anxiety that people should break it more extensively. He conceived that the improper course which the House was called upon to adopt would place it in a situation of the greatest possible difficulty that could be imagined. He was rather surprised that the hon. and learned member for Dublin should put so much importance on having his speeches reported, and, considering the estimation in which the hon. and learned Member was held, he (Lord Althorp) should have supposed that the hon. and learned Member could not have thought for a moment that he was called upon to bring forward this question as a serious question. The hon. and learned Member had said, that he was placed in the same situation in which hon. Members on previous occasions had brought their cases before the consideration of the House; but he must observe that the hon. and learned Member, in his opinion, would have consulted much

89
better his own situation and his rank in society, by not entering into such a contest. The position of the hon. and learned Member must certainly be particularly disagreeable to a Gentleman of his eloquence, but at the same time this could not interfere in the slightest degree with his duties in that House. He hoped that hon. and learned Member would not persevere in his Motion, but if he would choose to persevere he ought to take the responsibility of perseverance entirely upon himself. The House would do well to avoid engaging in the contest in which it would be involved, if it were to assent to the Motion of the hon. and learned Member.
Mr. O'Connellmeant to persevere, and bring this question before the House every time The Times published an account of their debates. Others might not have done so—they might have consulted their quiet; but he would not allow any man to punish him. He insisted on an apology, and would not allow any violation of his rights by any person whatever. No person could say, that he was made an outlaw. He called on the Speaker to state his opinion of their privileges, and to say whether the House could be justified in refusing his Motion while the Standing Orders remained on their books. If any one would move to rescind that Standing Order, he would vote for it; but while the Order remained he should insist upon it. If the House shrunk from this Motion, he should, but not till then, clear the gallery. He did not anticipate that the House would refuse the Motion.
The Speakerhaving been directly called upon by the hon. and learned Member, said: I should be sorry to be backward in answering his question; but I confess I do not clearly understand what point it is on which he requires information. If the question is, whether the publication of the debates of this House is a breach of the privileges of this House, I say that it is a breach of privilege, and I believe that nobody ever doubted that it was; and there is no man who ever viewed the constant violation of the Standing Order of the House as anything but permissive, for the benefit of the public; and, therefore, as consistent with the views of this House in allowing what they have deemed would be for the public advantage. If the hon. and learned Member means to ask this question, the House is aware of the answer;
90
but if he means further, whether, that being so, the House can alter or enforce the Order in each particular case, the answer I should give would be that the House retained the right of interfering or not at their pleasure, and would exercise their power according to the judgment they formed in each particular case. I am not certain whether I have answered what the hon. and learned Member meant to ask with respect to this particular case. I should say that the complaint and the grievance are both heavy; but the complaint is of one description, the grievance of another, and dealing with the complaint will not be a cure for the grievance. Under these circumstances, the House must, on this occasion, as on all others, decide whether they would carry their Order into effect or not. I shall not go further now than to say, that the question is, that the Order of the Day be read, and in this instance no Amendment can be moved, but subsequently on that will arise the question whether that Order shall be executed or thrown out.
Mr. O'Connellwished to know whether there was any instance of this kind in which the House had refused a Motion such as his? He had looked into the Journals, and found none.
The Speaker: If the hon. and learned Member says, that he has looked into the Journals, I should be sorry off-hand to oppose my distant recollection to his recent inquiry; but I must say, that my recollection is that many hours of the time of this House have been taken up, not in a debate whether a certain matter was a breach of privilege, but whether the question was upon the whole such a one that the House ought or ought not to interfere with regard to it. The mere right to interfere was never called in question.
The Order of the Day for the attendance of Messrs. Lawson, was then read.
Mr. O'Connellmoved that they be called in.
Mr. Methuen Mr. Methuen moved, as an Amendment, that the Order be discharged.
Mr. John Stanleyseconded the Amendment.
Mr. Kemyss Tyntehoped that the hon. and learned Member would withdraw the Motion. When it was first agitated, he thought it was something feasible. He found that that was not so. He should now oppose it; for the hon. and learned Member was now attempting to trench on

91
the liberties of the Press, and through them on the liberties of the people. This day three years he (Mr. Tynte) stood at the barricades in Paris, and he well remembered that one chief reason why the then king lost his throne, and was driven from his capital, was, that the Journals had appeared one blank, in consequence of the censorship. The hon. Member spoke of the censorship of the Press, and of the Speaker as censor; but he (Mr. Tynte) should never consent to any censorship, not even with the Speaker as censor. He hoped the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion, and if he considered that this Was the only mode the reporters had of testifying their feelings, at a charge of being guilty of uttering wilful falsehoods, he could, not wonder they should have adopted it. Even the worm, when trod on, would turn, and there were among those Gentlemen many who had as high feelings as any Members of that House.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, there was no man on that side of the House whose opinion he should be more proud to follow than that of the hon. Member who had just spoken. The hon. Member had said, that one of the causes of the Revolution of July, was the appearance of blank Journals. That was what he complained of—a censorship over that House, which should not be established through his person. Then he came to the charge. If he was right in it, was it not his duty to make it? The manly course was to make charges, if he was able to sustain them. He should be content to have that hon. Member, and the hon. Baronet, the member for the University, as arbitrators in this matter. His charge was a matter of fact, and if he did not prove it, there was no concession he would not make. The reporters had announced that they would outlaw one of the Members. Under these circumstances, the House might do what they pleased with the Motion.
Mr. Finnwas bound to state the grounds of his differing from the hon. and learned member for Dublin oh the present Occasion. The privilege of the House had certainly been mocked and set at defiance, but he would not vote for any proceedings against any individuals upon the Press, for he wanted to get rid of the privilege altogether, which was absurd and useless. For his part, speaking personally, he was little indebted to the Gentlemen of the Press, but he could not consent to punish
92
an individual for misreporting when he reflected that the House was too small, the reporters were badly accommodated, and that they were placed under every possible disadvantage of seeing and hearing, and of performing their most arduous, difficult, and important duties. He was sorry that the House had neglected the advice of the hon. member for Middlesex in his proposition to build a new House for the better accommodation of its Members. He never could vote for such a proposition as that of the hon. and learned member for Dublin; let it come from what quarter it might, but he would be always ready to vote to get rid of the absurd and useless privilege which the House never could exercise, and ought never to enforce. Hitherto the House had punished persons for violating the privilege, but now the proposition was to preserve the privilege whilst they punished men for not violating it. He had no reason to be satisfied with the reporters. He had been treated, he would not say with neglect by them, but with misrepresentation. Some of the reporters had put into his mouth words he had never littered, and in the mouths of other hon. Members words against him, which had never fallen from them. He could not be actuated by personal motives in the discharge of his public duties; and, notwithstanding what he might feel at the treatment he had experienced, he could not on that account be induced to vote against the reporters on the Motion now before the House.
Sir Francis Burdettobserved, that they had now entered into a wide field of discussion. He regretted that the hon. Member should think it his duty to bring forward this question, and he did not see by what possibility the House could enter upon the discussion of it. The reporters said that a groundless accusation of wilful misrepresentation had been brought against them. Some of that body he knew were as respectable men as any Gentleman in that House; and when such charges were made against them, it was not to be expected that such men would endure it with patience. Whether the course they had adopted Was a proper one or not he would not pretend to say, but what else could they do? The hon. Member said they misrepresented him—they denied it; but the House could not enter on that question. That battle had been fought on other occasions, and on better grounds

93
than now; but it had always been found that that House had not the means of extricating itself with credit from contests of this description. He wished to say that there was much disparity in the contest. The question was, whether the reporters had violated the privileges of that House? It was answered, that they had, because there was a standing order which they had
infringed, but that was not culpable, for in what they had done they had gone along with the well-understood concurrence of the House. Whether their reports were contrary to the fact could not be tried now. If the House considered men's feelings—and these gentlemen had feelings as much alive to the charge of misrepresentation as any Member of that House—they would not wonder at what had occurred. Many hon. Members had been passed over before now, but they never thought of making these complaints. The public had suffered the loss of the speeches of Tierney and of Windham; and it was indeed a loss to the public. He saw no means of remedying such occurrences, but to leave the matter to the competition of the Press. There was abundance of reporters—let the hon. Member have one of his own, and the papers that inserted his speeches would probably receive the reward of doing so from the public. There were no means of effecting the object so fair and impartial as this. He was aware that many Gentlemen thought their speeches curtailed; but that it was purposely done to wound them, was a charge he did not believe the members of the Press capable of. This was a matter out of the jurisdiction of that House, and any thing they might do would be nugatory.
Colonel Evanshad been informed of a circumstance within these few minutes, which he would state to the House. Per-haps the House might recollect that a few evenings ago he had been caught napping; and one of the Evening Papers (he did not mention it by way of complaint) had published a violent letter, exposing the ridiculous way in which he had been carried in and compelled to vote by the Speaker against his consent. The Paper in question had represented that his public character was now totally lost, and that he himself was utterly degraded. If he pursued the course of the hon. and learned member for Dublin, he should now be very angry; and call on the House to
94
assert its privileges in his behalf; he looked upon it, however, without any feelings of anger; and if the hon. and learned member for Dublin would only look on his case with similar good humour, he believed that it would soon pass over.
Mr. Aglionbysaid, the privileges of the press were invaluably important to the country, and he would never shrink from supporting them, but, at the same time, he would never shrink from raising his voice against its abuses. If the reporters avowed a determination to suppress any speeches uttered in that House, he would put it to the House whether it would not feel itself bound to visit such conduct by its interference. He regretted very much that this Motion had ever come forward, but, now that it had been brought forward, he put it to the House whether the question could be dismissed as a matter merely personal to the hon. and learned member for Dublin? He hoped that the House would look at with a wider scope, and would at once grasp, the difficulties. The suppression by the reporters ought not to be treated by the House merely as a punishment oh the hon. and learned member for Dublin. If the public speeches delivered in that House concerned the country—if the country were a party concerned in having the debates of that House reported—then, as reporting was a decided breach of privilege, it could only be performed by a sort of implied compact with the Press that the publication should be fair, and free from all partiality whatever. When the hon. member for Westminster spoke of the inaccuracies of the Press, he begged to remind him that this was not a case of inaccuracy, but of total and wilful suppression. If this had been a mistake, he should have been the last man in that House to make it the subject of severity. No man in that House or out of the House would more readily bow to the great difficulties under which the Press laboured with respect to locality, with respect to the difficulties of seeing and hearing, with respect to the difficulties of selecting and condensing, and, in short, with respect to the innumerable obstacles with which the reporters had to contend; but all this was different from a wilful suppression and a combination or conspiracy to suppress. He had heard that night the simile of the worm turning. If the hon. and learned member for Dublin

95
had done injustice to the reporters, no man, he hoped, would be more willing to make reparation. If he thought the hon. Member would not, he would not, for one single moment, take the side of the question he was now taking. Let the worm turn in a proper way, and make a remonstrance to the hon. Member. The feelings of the House and country would then be with the reporters. This was not a personal matter: but one in which the country was concerned, deeply concerned; but how the House was to get out of the matter he did not know. The House had a privilege which it was inconvenient to continue, and a dignity which it did not know how to enforce.
The House divided on the Amendment—Ayes 153; Noes 48: Majority 105.

List of the NOES.

Attwood, T.

Maxwell, J.

Barron, W.

O'Connell, M.

Blake, Sir F.

O'Connell, J.

Blake, M. J.

O'Dwyer, A. C.

Buckingham, J. S.

Oswald, R. A.

Callander, J. H.

Oswald, J.

Chapman, A.

Parrott, J.

Clay, W.

Pinney, W.

Copeland, Alderman

Richards, J.

Cornish, J.

Romilly, E.

Daly, J.

Romilly, J.

Faithfull, G.

Roebuck, J.

Fancourt, Major

Ruthven, E.

Fitzgerald, T.

Ruthven, E. S.

French, F.

Stormont, Viscount

Halcombe, John

Sullivan, R.

Handley, B.

Vigors, N. A.

Harvey, D. W.

Wallace, R.

Hawkins, J. H.

Warburton, H.

Hudson, J.

Wilbraham, G.

Hume, J.

Young, G. F.

Humphery, J.

TELLERS.

Jephson, C. D. O.

Aglionby, H. A.

Marsland, T.

O'Connell, D.

Martin, T. B.

On Business again proceeding after the division, the Gallery was immediately cleared on the notice taken by Mr. O'Connell, that it contained strangers, and it was kept closed for the remainder of the evening.

ABOLITION OF SLAVERY.
The House went, it was understood, into a Committee on the Slavery Abolition Bill, and Lord Howick moved, "That no apprenticed labourer should be liable to be flogged unless convicted of conspiracy and mutiny."
On this question the Committee divided,
96
and seventy-four Members voted for the noble Lord's Motion. The following is a list of those who supported the noble Lord.

ENGLAND.

Plumptre, J. P.

Aglionby, H. A.

Potter, R.

Blake, Sir. F.

Poulter, J. S.

Bouverie,—

Sanford, E. A.

Briggs, R.

Scrope, P.

Brotherton, J.

Seale, Col.

Buckingham, J. S.

Shawe, R. N.

Buxton, T. F.

Staveley, T. K.

Cayley, Sir G.

Tancred, H. W.

Chichester, J. P. B.

Thicknesse, R.

Clay, W.

Throckmorton, R. G.

Dawson, E.

Trelawny, W. L. S.

Evans, W.

Turner, W.

Ewart, W.

Tynte, C. J. K.

Faithfull, G.

Tyrell, C.

Fancourt, Major

Vincent, Sir F.

Fielden, J.

Walter, J.

Frankland, Sir R.

Wason, R.

Fryer, R.

Wedgwood, J.

Gore, M.

Wilks, J.

Handley, Major

SCOTLAND.

Handley, W. F.

Agnew, Sir A.

Harland, W. C.

Johnston, A.

Harvey, D. W.

Sinclair, G.

Hughes, H.

IRELAND.

Ingilby, Sir W.

Blake, M.

Jerningham, Hn. H. V.

Evans, G.

Kennedy, T.

Finn, W. F.

Key, Sir J.

Grattan, J.

Lambton, H.

O'Connell, D.

Langdale, Hon. C.

O'Connell, M.

Locke, W.

O'Connell, J.

Lushington, Dr.

O'Dwyer, A. C.

Marjoribanks, S.

O'Reilly, W.

Marsland, T.

Ruthven, E.

Methuen, P.

Ruthven, E. S.

Parker, J.

TELLER.

Parrott, J.

Howick, Lord

Phillipps, C. M.

The Committee to sit again.