HC Deb 04 March 1834 vol 21 cc1115-43
Mr. Wigney

, in rising to bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice, relative to the case of Mr. Cohen, the publisher of the Brighton Guardian newspaper, begged to assure the House, that he felt considerable dissatisfaction at being obliged to do so at that late hour of the night (past 12); but he begged to assure the House, that he would not occupy much of their time. He first begged leave to present a Petition from the borough of Newport in the Isle of Wight, and also from the town and port of Hastings, and another Petition from the city of Chichester,—all most numerously and respectably signed, and likewise a Petition from the borough of Lewes, signed by 300 of the inhabitants of that town, all praying that the person who was the object of the present Motion, Mr. Cohen, now a prisoner in Chelmsford Gaol, might be released from his confinement. [The Petitions having been laid on the Table, Mr. Wigney proceeded.] He now begged to submit to the House the Motion of which he had had the honour of giving notice that day fortnight, namely, that an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, praying that he would be pleased to remit the remainder of the sentence on Mr. Cohen, who was now confined in his Majesty's Gaol at Chelmsford. This person to whom he (Mr. Wigney) alluded, was found guilty at the last assizes of a libel upon the Magistrates of Sussex, but it was declared by the learned Judge who tried the case that there was no ground for the charge preferred against Mr. Cohen in one of the counts. The charge was, that he had excited the agricultural labourers of Sussex to acts of incendiarism. This certainly was a very serious charge; and if it had been proved, in his opinion no punishment would have been too severe for the individual who had been guilty of a crime so monstrous; but this charge was over-ruled by the learned Judge, who thought there was no ground for it; and yet the Jury returned a verdict finding Mr. Cohen guilty. It was for this libel on the Magistrates, the prosecution of which was supported by many of them, though many were not in favour of it, for which, it appeared, this prisoner had suffered, and did still suffer, a most severe sentence in Chelmsford Gaol, at a great distance from his own county. He thought that six months' imprisonment, a fine of 50l., and the necessity of finding sureties for three years, was in this case a sentence of unparalleled severity. He hoped, that this person having now suffered four months' imprisonment, not only the law was satisfied, but that the prosecutor was satisfied, and that the House would agree to this Motion which he had brought forward. He would only refer to one or two circumstances of the case. He was exceedingly sorry the other morning that the hon. Baronet, the member for Shoreham (Sir C. Burrell) had adverted to two former occasions on which this individual had been convicted of libels. However guilty he might have been, he had then suffered the penalty of the law for those libels; as far as he could, he bad atoned for them; and, therefore, he thought that this case should be allowed to rest on its own merits, and, he would say, that the punishment Mr. Cohen had suffered in this case was far too much, and when they considered that an individual in another country had been punished not only under another law, but for an offence of the greatest possible magnitude—he alluded to the case of the editor of the Pilot,—when he (Mr. Wigney) considered that that individual, having published what was considered a gross libel on the Administration of the country, and having been supposed to have incited the people of the country to sedition—when that person was only condemned to six months' imprisonment, and this unfortunate gentleman, whose cause he advocated, had been condemned to an equal punishment, though the two cases were of so distinct a nature, and the penalty inflicted was so severe, that he could not consider under what circumstances anomalous verdicts could have been given,—he hoped that the case of Mr. Cohen would be attended to by the House, and that the Motion would meet with their approbation. From the circumstance of the Under Secretary of State not having given him any hint whatever that the Government would oppose this Motion, he would say he was sanguine in his expectation that they would grant his request. The prisoner had written a letter to the Secretary of State, praying to be released from confinement, and his Lordship had written an answer back, stating that he was not able to interfere with the case, and therefore he (Mr Wigney) would make a Motion to accomplish that object. He would content himself with moving that an humble Address be presented to his Majesty praying that he would be graciously pleased to remit the remainder of the sentence inflicted upon Mr. Cohen.

Mr. Kemp

begged to second the Motion, and said that he did so with considerable satisfaction, because there had been just laid on the Table of the House, a Petition signed by 300 of the inhabitants of the town which he represented. With respect to this prosecution he rejoiced to say, that several of his hon. friends, Members of that House and Magistrates of the county of Sussex, certainly did represent to the other Magistrates that it was highly desirable for the public benefit and the best interests of society at large, that this editor of the paper in question should not be prosecuted under the Libel-law. He (Mr. Kemp) was of opinion that the sentence which Mr. Cohen had already undergone,—four months' imprisonment in Chelmsford gaol, eighty or ninety miles from the town where he conducted a provincial paper,—he thought, he repeated, that that circumstance was sufficient to show that he had already suffered enough to satisfy the law, particularly as he had been acquitted of the principal part of the offence with which he was charged,—that part relative to exciting the labourers to acts of incendiarism. And another circumstance which ought to weigh with the House was, that during the whole time which elapsed between the publication of the paragraph and the trial, no incendiary fires occurred in Sussex. He hoped the House would take into consideration the case of this person, and, as justice was satisfied, that they would agree to the Motion of the hon. member for Brighton, and address his Majesty to remit the remainder of Mr. Cohen's sentence.

The Motion having been put by the Speaker,

Lord Howick

, in rising to oppose the Motion which had been moved by the hon. Member opposite, thought it right to apologise to the hon. Member for not having expressed his intention of giving a determined opposition to the Motion; but he certainly had conceived that the hon. Member had understood from him that he was only to receive another communication in the event of the decision of Lord Melbourne being revoked. He was not aware, therefore, of the hon. Member being in expectation of receiving from him (Lord Howick) any intimation that could lead to the belief that he was disposed to acquiesce in the hon. Gentleman's proposition. He thought it necessary to state that he had learnt that some disappointment had been evinced at his not having been in the House at the morning sitting a few days back, when a similar petition to those presented to night, had been presented from the individual himself. He could only say, as an excuse for his absence, that it was only two days ago that he had heard that such a thing was in existence. He saw it stated in the course of the debate that the hon. Member regretted the absence of the members of the Government, but he (Lord Howick) had no intimation that the petition was to be presented, and in consequence he was not present when the petition was presented. The hon. Member who had proposed this Motion, and the hon. Member by whom it was seconded, had both agreed that the libel of which Mr. Cohen had been convicted, was, in point of fact, a very trifling offence, and had argued that it was the duty of the responsible advisers of the Crown to interfere to release him from his punishment. He (Lord Howick) would not go into the details of the question of it; but he confessed that his own opinion was that it was hardly possible to conceive a more aggravated case of libel than that for which Mr. Cohen was now suffering punishment. This Gentleman had accused the Magistrates of Sussex, by their oppression and tyranny, of compelling the labouring classes in that county to have recourse to acts of incendiarism as the only means of making their situation and their wants known. It was stated in this article, that when the labourers had met to ask for a redress of grievances, the Magistrates had called them mob, and transported them. If that charge were true it would have been a charge of the heaviest description, and the editor of a well-conducted newspaper would have done well to have brought it before the public; but if it were not true, he would say, it then became a libel of the most aggravated description, and he could not be surprised that the Magistrates of Sussex should think it necessary to have recourse to the law to defend themselves from such an attack. He was not a person who generally advised prosecutions for political and seditious libels. He held an opinion that, except under very peculiar circumstances, it was much better to trust to the effect of a free discussion and the discretion and good sense of the people to neutralise the efforts of those trading in sedition, but with regard to libels on private character it was different. He saw nothing—no tyranny which would be more intolerable than that of the Press, if men, when their characters were attacked by the newspapers, were debarred from defending themselves and bringing the question of their imputed guilt before a Jury of their countrymen. With respect to the charge against the Magistrates of Sussex, in this case, he did not, as he said before, mean to go into it, but it was sufficient for him to say, that that case was fairly brought before a Jury, and that by their verdict Mr. Cohen was found guilty, nor was this all. Judgment was not given at that time, but having given bail he was subsequently brought before the Court of King's Bench, on which occasion were present the Lord Chief Justice and three other Judges of the Court. Mr. Cohen was fully heard in mitigation and after mature deliberation the Court pronounced its judgment. The learned Judge (Judge Park) in passing sentence did state that he did not think the Jury intended to find Mr. Cohen guilty of intending to incite the labourers to acts of incendiarism, but he said. "if the Court was really satisfied that it was your intention to excite the labouring classes to commit violence—the punishment which the Court would inflict on you would be much more severe than it will be;" and no hon. Gentleman would deny that if it was held such intention existed, it would be a case calling for the severest judgment, but for the minor offence of this unfounded charge against the Magistrates, the Court pronounced a solemn sentence of six months imprisonment and a fine of 50l. [Mr. Wigney: And requiring sureties for three years.] If they looked back to former years and the sentences which used to be given by the same Court, they would find that this was a light one in comparison. He had the curiosity that day to desire to have a return given him of the sentences passed by the Court of King's Bench, and he found they ran from one to two years' imprisonment, and a fine of 100l. He thought the Court had acted very wisely in this instance in not inflicting a more moderate punishment. But when he considered the nature of the case, the gravity of the charge against the Magistrates, and the want of even the colour of truth in it, he could not think the punishment excessive. But even were the case one of hardship, if on first appearances the punishment might seem to hon. Gentlemen to be beyond what the merits of the case required, yet it was not a case in which the mercy of the Crown ought to be interposed, and still less a case in which that House ought to interpose, to call on the advisers of the Crown to alter the decision of the Judges. It was an opinion which had always been acted upon in this country, that the prerogative of the Crown in interfering with the decision of a court, was one which ought to be most sparingly exercised. When a sentence had been passed with due consideration in a Court of Justice, unless special circumstances arose, that sentence should be fulfilled. The prerogative of pardon was not in general used; it was made use of in late years in two cases, to modify the sentences in those cases in which the discretion of the Judge was fettered by the law, and he was obliged to pronounce a sentence more severe than the merits of the case required. And it was also made use of when some circumstances arose after the sentence was pronounced, and came to be known, which showed that a lighter sentence would have been pronounced if the prisoner could have shown that his former character and conduct had been better than there had been reason at the time to suppose; or if extenuating circumstances, not before known, should come to light, it was fit the mercy of the Crown should interpose. But it was not the custom of the country that the prerogative of the Crown should be used to over-rule the sentences and decisions come to by the Judges with a full knowledge of the cases. In the case before the House, there was neither of the reasons to which he had referred. The Judges had the full power of passing as light a sentence as they might think fit, it was not a case in which capital punishment was inflicted by law, and in which the Judge did not think so heavy a penalty ought to be inflicted. But in this case the Court had full power of judging the amount of punishment which they thought the case required, and had anything occurred since the sentence was pronounced to warrant the Secretary of State to revoke, or which should induce the House to address the Crown for a remission of that sentence? So far from it, the only additional circumstance elicited by the discussion of the case was, that this was not the first offence of the kind of which this person had been convicted; that on the contrary, it was the fourth libel brought against him, and for which he had been convicted by a Court of Law; and in one case, having been convicted of an aggravated libel on an individual, he escaped by an act of bankruptcy from the payment of the damages which the Court had adjudged to the injured party. These were the only circumstances which had come out; and was there any ground on which the Secretary of State could form an opinion? Was this a case in which it would have been proper for the responsible advisers of his Majesty to exert the prerogative of pardon? But the question now before them, was not whether the privilege of pardon might have been properly exercised in this case, but whether that House ought to interfere to induce his Majesty to take a different course from what his responsible advisers had thought fit to pursue. He had listened to the speech of the hon. mover and seconder, in order to hear some grounds for taking a course so extraordinary—which, unless there were very particular reasons, it was strongly objectionable to adopt—but there was not one argument of the kind brought forward. Had the hon. Members who supported this Motion, had those who were prepared to vote for it, considered how very dangerous and mischievous a precedent would be established by it? It would be neither more nor less than a vote to revoke by a popular assembly the solemn decision of a legal tribunal of the land. Such a course was, by that House, almost unprecedented. Of late years he could only find two instances in which such a proposition had been submitted to Parliament. One Motion was made by his hon. friend the member for Devonshire (Lord Ebrington) who moved that an humble address be presented to his Majesty, praying that that part of the sentence passed upon Lord Cochrane by the Court of King's Bench, by which he was to be exposed in the pillory might be revoked; and on the next occasion, an address was moved by another noble friend of his, the Paymaster of the Forces, having for its object the remission of part of the sentence passed upon Sir Manasseh Lopes: and in both cases the Motions were withdrawn by the movers, which showed in the strongest manner how very great a reluctance that House had always entertained, and he thought always ought to entertain, in any interference on subjects of this nature; and he would now more particularly instance the last case—that of Sir Manasseh Lopes. His noble friend in introducing his Motion thought it necessary to guard himself and apologize for bringing forward such a Motion, by saying, that it was a case in which the Ministers of the Crown could hardly have acted without the encouragement of the House. Sir Manasseh Lopes had been convicted of bribery at an election, and sentenced to the enormous punishment of a fine of 10,000l. and two years' imprisonment. After having paid the fine and been two months' in prison, his noble friend moved that the remainder of the sentence be remitted, the prosecution having been instituted under the directions of that House, and it being a case of a political nature it would have been difficult for Ministers to remit the sentence. On that ground his noble friend proposed his Motion, and every Member who supported it did so on similar grounds, and the reluctance of the House was so great that his noble friend withdrew his Motion, without any promise on the part of Ministers, but that the case should be taken into consideration. In fact, Sir Manasseh Lopes's punishment was not remitted till a month after the date of the Motion. If in those oases the House was unwilling to interfere, he would ask hon. Members whether in that case which was before them it would not be much more objectionable? Even those who had brought the question forward acknowledged there was some doubt whether it was or was not a fitting case for the mercy of the Crown, and he again asked, should they now establish so very dangerous a precedent as that of bringing under the view of that House the national tribunals of this land? It had hitherto been held, that however high party warfare and party question had been carried on the part of the people, the judgment seat had been free from the influence of them. Should they then bring a subject of this kind under the view of that House, and risk the loss of the advantages which the contrary practice had given? He would most earnestly request hon. Members to consider before they agreed to such and so very strong a measure as this.

Mr. Hawkins

Sir, I was prevented, by illness, from being present when this subject was last brought under the notice of the House; and from adding, as I should then have done, my voice to that of the independent members who recommended the case of the petitioner to the consideration of his Majesty's Ministers. I much regret the opposition which they have thought fit to offer to this Motion. I regret it, not only on account of the petitioner, who I think has had a very hard measure of justice dealt out to him; but also for the sake of his Majesty's Ministers, who, I think, are now throwing away an opportunity of recommending to the Crown an act of well-timed clemency. That the Crown would cheerfully comply with such a recommendation, both the personal and political character of its present possessor alike forbid us to doubt. The noble Lord thinks that no case has been made out for the interference of the Crown; I differ from him. With all respect for the noble Lord, I think this is eminently a case for the exercise of the highest prerogative of the Crown; I think this precisely one of those cases against which this prerogative was meant to provide. Why, the state of the law under which this person has been punished is alone sufficient reason, were there no other, to justify such interference. The present state of our Libel-law—the tyrannical use that, in more than one instance, has lately been made of it—the change which it is forthwith about to undergo—are all good reasons for a mitigation of the sentence. When a bad use has been made of even a good law—still more when a bad use has been made of a bad law—then it is a fitting time for the Crown to exercise its power of pardon; but when an oppressive use has been made of a law so bad that it is about to be changed, then public sympathy invariably points out as fit objects for consideration those who are suffering a punishment incurred thereby. Let us put an analogous case. Let us suppose that this House were now engaged in considering the propriety of abolishing the punishment of death in cases of forgery, and that a prisoner was lying in Newgate under sentence of death for that offence; what Ministry, under such circumstances, would venture to put that sentence in execution? Would not the mere fact of the law being under consideration be sufficient to ensure a remission of the punishment? Now, here is a precisely analogous case. Mr. Cohen is suffering a punishment incurred under a law in defence of which not a voice is lifted up. Men of all parties and opinions,—Tories, Whigs, and Radicals,—from John o'Groat's to the land's end—not a tongue that does not cry, "Out upon it!" We have petitions against it—we have pledges against it—we have a Bill on our Table for its reform—and we have a Ministry professing themselves anxious to reform it! If ever there was a case for the exercise of the brightest prerogative of the Crown, it is now before us. Here is a man suffering punishment under a law so bad, that it is about to be changed in the present Session of Parliament; which will, probably, be so changed before his punishment expires; a punishment, too, which, even under that law, is thought unusually severe. No one denies that the punishment is according to law; but will any one say, that it is according to justice? When did ever such a punishment, inflicted under such circumstances, produce a bene- ficial effect? Of course, no one supposes it to have been inflicted by the Judge, or called for by the prosecutor, for the sake of vengeance. But then, it is no example; it can never act as a warning. A punishment, the unexampled severity of which has surprised even his enemies, may make a man a martyr; but as long as human nature remains what it is,—as long as the English character remains unchanged—it never will make him an example, or a warning. It may ruin him; it may reduce his family to beggary; but it will not put down the paper, nor even change its tone. Sir, I incline to think, that in no case does punishment produce a good effect, unless public opinion go along with it; but in cases of punishment for offences of the Press, I am sure, that unless the sentence be a concise expression of public feeling, it never can produce a beneficial result. The only practical effect likely to ensue from enforcing this sentence is, that, at the end of the year, the Stamp-office returns will, probably, show an increased circulation of the Brighton Guardian. But, suppose, Sir, that a punishment of this undue severity ever did, or in England ever could act as a warning, what is there to be warned against? What is the crime from whence people are to be deterred? Is the House in possession of the real state of this case? Observe, in the first place, that the Judge who pronounced sentence, expressly acquitted Mr. Cohen of the graver part of the charge,—of that part of the charge for which alone I should have ever thought that such a sentence could be inflicted,—that is, the intention of inciting the peasantry to acts of violence and outrage,—the wish to encourage incendiary fires. Of course, then, there is no need of an example here. There can be no warning intended against a crime of which the prisoner is acquitted! Look, now, to the minor offence of which Mr. Cohen is convicted; I mean, the bringing certain Magistrates of the county of Sussex into contempt. With regard to this charge, he distinctly proved in Court, that the insertion of the paragraph was an act of inadvertence,—that it was received so late on the eve of publication, that he had not an opportunity of making himself acquainted with its contents. Now, even, if such a sentence could operate as a warning against evil intention, it never could act as a preventive of inadvertence or carelessness. Without occasional inadvertence of this kind, no newspaper can be carried on; and, I am quite sure, that ten times the punishment inflicted on Mr. Cohen will never suffice to put down newspapers. I say, that Mr. Cohen distinctly proved, that the insertion of the paragraph was an act of inadvertence—that it was sent to press, without examination, amidst a bundle of news from country correspondents. But, had he not been prevented, by the absurd technicalities of our Libel-law, he would have proved more; he would have proved, that which is well known to the reader of his paper—that, without which, I cannot conceive, how any Judge or Jury, could come to a right decision after such a case—the general tendency, the usual strain, of his political writings. Probably few Members of Parliament are acquainted with the Brighton Guardian; it does not flatter us sufficiently to have many readers among our honourable body. It is a paper of strong political principles, of Ultra-Radical opinions, and those opinions it inculcates by strong, uncompromising, if you please, by acrimonious, criticism on many of our existing institutions in Church and State. But for a paper of this kind, it is singularly free from personal libels and individual attack. It is no respecter of existing institutions; but it is no habitual libeller of those by whom they are administered. As for encouragement to outrage and violation of the law, this single paragraph is the only one that has come under my notice that could be tortured into such a tendency. So unfair a sample do I consider it of the habitual style of its political department, that I can safely say, that had it been laid before me by itself, and had I been asked to say, from whence it had been extracted, one of the last papers to which I should have referred it, would have been the Brighton Guardian. Sir, I am unable to understand the grounds on which the present Motion is resisted; it is one of those opportunities for the exercise of the Royal mercy which I should have thought a Ministry would have been as glad to recommend, as I am sure the Crown would be to adopt; I see, in the present case, no drawback on the royal satisfaction; none of those objections which sometimes apply to similar Motions. It sometimes happens that the reversal of a judicial sentence, even in this most graceful of ways, implies, or is thought to imply, a censure on the Judge; the remission of a punishment is sometimes taken as a reflection on the motive of the prosecutor. No such objection, no such cause for hesi- tation, can apply here. Mr. Cohen petitions, not against the Judge, but against the law. He expressly acquits the learned Judge who pronounced the sentence of any partiality. He does not even attribute the extraordinary severity of the sentence to any improper motives. I am glad that such are his feelings; I am glad that he has taken this course; for it is one that every honourable man, in pleading his own cause, would wish to take. This course takes away all pretence for making this a personal debate. We are discussing the merits of a law, not the merits of those by whom it is administered; the law, the expediency of enforcing a particular punishment—not the motives of those who have inflicted it. Mr. Cohen attributes his sufferings to the state of the law; he admits, that the law was administered according to the usual practice; it is on that state of the law, and on that practice that I ground my arguments for a mitigation of the punishment. I do say, that the fact of a man being put on his trial for a seditious libel—that libel being an isolated paragraph of 32 lines, extracted from a periodical publication; the defendant not being allowed to plead in his justification the habitual tone and tendency of his political writings, though no imputation on the Judge who only did his duty in following the usual practice of the courts,—is yet a sufficient reason for the interference of the Crown in mitigation of the sentence. There is no doubt that this is a very undeserved sentence—not from any improper motives on the part of the prosecutor, or from any improper conduct on the part of the Judge, but from defects in the law under which he was tried, and which law this House is forthwith about to reform. Again, I regret the course that his Majesty's Ministers have taken to-night; I regret still more that they did not see fit to take the initiative in this matter. As it is, however, I do not see how the hon. Member can do better than to take the sense of the House on the question. If the House will recommend this act of mercy, and the Ministers will support the recommendation, no one doubts the good nature of William 4th.

Lord George Lennox

said, he was not going into the case of Mr. Cohen, as if it was one of so extraordinary a nature as to call upon that House to agree to an address requesting his Majesty to remit the remainder of Mr. Cohen's imprisonment, for he (Lord G. Lennox) was quite sure, that a more false or infamous paragraph than that which had given rise to the prosecution connected with the Motion before the House bad never been put into a paper. The learned Judge, in passing sentence, suited, that no one, on reading the paragraph, could doubt but that it was, "in every sense, a gross and scandalous libel on the Magistrates." Mr. Cohen insinuated that the Magistrates oppressed and ill-used the labouring classes, and asserted, chat when the latter "have been with any party to ask for a redress of grievances, they (the Magistrates) have called them 'Mob; and have transported them;" and the period at which this libel was published was a time that fires were raging and mobs collecting in different parts of the county of Sussex. Mr. Cohen went on to say,—"The consequence has been, that the oppressed labourers have had no way of making their situation and their wants known but by setting fire to the stacks of individuals who were obnoxious to them." But this was slipped in by accident. Now, let them see what Mr. Cohen said since he had been convicted. He held in his hand a copy of the Brighton Guardian. It was dated "Chelmsford Gaol, Wednesday, February 26th, 1834, and fifteenth week of our incarceration on the prosecution of W. C. Mabbott, Esq. of Uckfield." He had one word, however, to say, before be read the extract, and that was, that he believed that Mr. Mabbott, individually, had no more to do with the prosecution than he (Lord G. Lennox) had. Mr. Mabbott happened, at a time, when there were some meetings near Lewes, to go to preserve the peace; there was a meeting about Political Unions; on his return to Lewes he attended a meeting of thirteen visiting Magistrates, on county business; he then represented to them the state of his own vilage, when an individual from Brighton, one of the Magistrates, brought in the paper containing this libel, and the Magistrates were of opinion that a prosecution ought to be commenced; and if he (Lord G. Lennox) mentioned the names of the Magistrates then present, the hon. Gentleman himself, and the other supporters of Mr. Cohen would agree with him in saying, that a more honourable body of men could not exist. In the number he found the names of the Earl of Chichester, Sir George Shiffner, Mr. Campion, Mr. Courthope, and the Chairman of the Quarter Sessions at Lewes; therefore he considered that Mr. Mabbott only acted completely as one of that body, and he was no more responsible for that act than the other thirteen. But that was not the object of Mr. Cohen; he wished to have one man whom he might hold forth to the people as an object of odium and hatred. He was not now speaking from interested motives, for there was not one Magistrate on that list who had a vote for that part of the county which he represented. On the 26th of last month, Mr. Cohen, in a leading article, stated,—"Three years have now elapsed since the pauperised, degraded, and insulted peasantry, reduced to their abject condition by the Magistracy and the Government, moved through the country in numerous gangs, breaking and destroying and inflicting evil on those with whom they ought to live on the most friendly terms. Now, I charge this distinctly on the Magistracy and on the landowners." In his petition Mr. Cohen stated to that House, that he was unfairly accused of attempting to vilify the Magistrates of Sussex. Whether the accusation was unfair before, he (Lord G. Lennox) knew not; but he knew that now Mr. Cohen had attempted, and in this very article, to vilify the Magistrates of the county; and here he would only read one extract in proof of his statement. Mr. Cohen said, "Can you wonder, gentlemen, when you thus patiently submit to be plundered so far in the name of the law, that your patience should encourage other exactions? Why, the tax-gatherers and the tax-ordainers, taking a lesson from this patient submission, look upon you like the clods you tread on, which require to be bruised and broken by the plough and tortured by the harrow before they give you any increase, and your legal masters harrow you as you harrow the earth; but that has no feeling, till they extract from you everything you can possibly spare." This was the language Mr. Cohen used after his petition to that House to address his Majesty on his behalf. This was the language of the individual whom his friends wished them (the House) to believe was a good man. The hon. Gentleman said, he had read Mr. Cohen's papers, and had never heard or seen anything in them of the kind charged, or sentiments of such a nature. Now, there was a requisition (said the noble Lord, quoting from it) in which the undersigned inhabitants of Brighton called upon the High Constable to convene a public meeting to consider a most atrocious and wanton attack on his Majesty which appeared in the Brighton Guardian news- paper. The requisition was signed by many individuals, amongst whom he found the name of William Wigney, jun., who, was, he believed, a relation of that hon. Member who had brought forward the present Motion. This was the man that never vilified individuals. This was the man who was to be held up as a martyr, and for whom they were to go out of their way in carrying an address to his Majesty.

Mr. Charles Buller

said, he would not take up much of the time of the House; he should have been glad if he could have addressed them before. The noble Lord who addressed the House last had entered into a discussion of the character of Mr. Cohen, when the question before the House was,—whether the libel of which Mr. Cohen was convicted was an offence for which, under a rational system of law, any man ought to be punished? He would not enter into the circumstances of the trial except to state, that he did not think that it was a fair trial. For, in the first place, he had been tried by a Special Jury, composed of landowners and private gentlemen; and they were almost all, as a matter of necessity, Anti-reformers. He did not say all of them were; he said most of them were Anti-reformers; and therefore it was exceedingly hard to take him from his natural Judges, and take him before Judges who held very strong political principles of a contrary tendency; and though they might say, if he had been brought before a common Jury, that they had sympathised more with him, surely it was better that the sympathy should be with the defendant than the prosecutor. Then, again, the atrocious part of the Libel-law left men dubious of what offence had been committed. He (Mr. Buller) was in court when Mr. Cohen was brought up for judgment; and the impression in that part of the Court where he (Mr. Buller) was, was that the sentence was exceedingly light; and why? Because it was said, he was the man who had been convicted of inciting the people to acts of incendiarism; and yet the Judge said, "considering what passed at the trial, I do not think that the Jury intended to find you guilty of that intention." Was this an offence that ought to be punished? He did not say, that Mr. Cohen had a right to libel the Magistrates. He did not say that Mr. Cohen's language was temperate, or decorous; but this was a free country, in which they ought to leave public functionaries open to free discussion. He said, that, on these matters, if they wished to have liberty of discussion, they ought to allow the people to express what opinions they liked on the conduct of the Government. They must not pretend to interfere with the people's language, and say the people did not make their observations in a proper tone. It was better that the people should do so in an improper tone than that Government should take on itself to interpret that tone in its own way. The noble Lord (Lord Howick) it seemed to him (Mr. Buller) had committed a great mistake; there seemed to be a confusion of ideas in his mind; at least, there was a misrepresentation; for he had treated this as a libel on a private individual. He rejected the idea of its being a prosecution of the Government; and said it was a libel on a private individual. But it was not; it was a libel on public functionaries of the Government, and they ought to be the object of the constant unremitting vigilance of the public; and the public Press ought to inquire, and he hoped would continue to scrutinize, with unceasing vigour and vigilance, the conduct of Magistrates. The question was, whether Mr. Cohen had done wrong in blaming the conduct of the Magistrates of Sussex. He did not say, that Mr. Cohen had formed a right opinion or a wrong one; but Mr. Cohen had as good a right to express his wrong opinion in intemperate language as any Member in that House. The Government ought to recollect that which had been advanced by Mr. Cohen on his trial, namely: that the Government itself had not been so very scrupulous in examining the conduct of the Magistrates. He would only ask them to look at the Report of the gentlemen deputed, and whose expenses were paid by Government, under the title of Poor-law Commissioners,—whose invaluable services to the country he did not mean to detract from,—who stated it to be a fact, and attributed the misery of the country and unpopularity of the laws to the misconduct of the Magistrates. He knew that that language was unpopular in that House, which was principally composed of Magistrates; and therefore he asked the House not to give way to prejudice. He did not mean to accuse the Magistrates of a general defalcation of duty; but it had been the careless benevolence and misconduct of the Magistrates which had brought about the present dreadful state of the country in reference to the poor-rates. Ought it to be tolerated, then, that when the Poor-law Commis- sioners were casting these insinuations,—was it just, that one individual, a poor country editor, should be punished for saying the same thing? Then, too, when they considered the atrocious nature of the Libel-law,—which was a disgrace to the country, and at this moment the House were considering how to alter it,—he must say, this was not a moment in which the Mouse ought to hesitate to interfere in this very severe case. He did not mean to attack the Judges. A Judge, according to the old saying, should be considered just, and a Chancellor juster. He said, they could inflict no greater disgrace upon the law of the country and the administration of justice, in the eyes of the people and of the country,—who looked to their proceedings and those of the Courts,—than by continuing a sentence which the people looked upon as vindictive, and which the House should prevent being inflicted on any individual in future.

Mr. Hodgson

believed that, in what the hon. Member (Mr. C. Buller) had said, it must be obvious to the House, as well as to himself, that not only the object, but the tendency of his learned friend's speech was rather to amuse than to instruct; but with regard to the latter part of what fell from him,—and the same argument had been used by another hon. Gentleman,—it deserved some more consideration. The hon. Gentleman stated, it was unjust to carry into execution a sentence passed under a law which the House were about to alter. A Bill, certainly, had been brought in to alter the law, but the prosecution of this case would have been precisely the same. The only advantage the editor would have had, if the Bill had been passed into a law, was, that he would have been able to justify the libel, if he could prove its truth. Whatever the opinion of the hon. Gentleman was, he thought that neither that House, nor any Jury of the country would have found a verdict if a justification of the libel were produced.

Mr. Goring

said, I should not have risen on this occasion had I not the honour of knowing some of the individuals who tried Mr. Cohen for the libel of which he was convicted. The Jury was composed principally of Yeomen, and, I believe some tradesmen. There was not one Magistrate, and the foreman was as respectable a Yeoman as any in Sussex—a most independent and honourable man—and no anti-reformer. I made this statement on a former occasion, that I thought an importance was given to the paragraph by the prosecutor which it did not merit; and what I stated on that occasion, in regard to fires, was only meant as applicable to the Arundel district. I state this because I have been misrepresented in a provincial paper. I will now advert to the claim which the individual has to the merciful interposition of this House, and see whether this individual merits the intercession of the Parliament. Since I had the honour of addressing this House on this subject, this editor, while soliciting the gentry of the county of Sussex, who have scats in this House, to intercede for him to obtain a remission of his sentence, has been publishing a most unwarrantable attach upon the whole Magistracy of that county, and has been endeavouring to set the tenantry against their landlords to the utmost of his power, as will appear from the short extracts which I will take the liberty to read from an article which appeared in the Brighton Guardian of the 26th of February, in the form of a letter to the farmers of Sussex, headed, "On the Utility of the Squirearchy." He says, "Of what use, I ask, are the squires and land-owners to you, who secure such a large portion of your produce? We hear perpetually about the great virtues of the country Magistrates—about the great utility of this order of men—but do you find that confirmed by experience? Are the county rates, levied by an irresponsible magistracy, compensated by the manner in which the squires administer the law, and call it justice? Are the rents you pay remunerated by the protection the squires afford your property? Do you, in short, receive one advantage from your landlords which is a complete compensation for the rent you pay, and for the rents they, in the character of justices, levy on you?" One would suppose. Sir, from such language as this, that the property of the soil belonged to the farmers and that the landlords had no right to ask them to pay any rent at all. This is the spirit in which he endeavours to excite the farmers against the gentry of the county, at the very time that he is calling on this House to intercede with the Crown on his behalf. With permission of the House I will read one extract more. "To preserve order is the duty of the Magistrates; and your present knowledge of the state of the country, as well as your recollection of its condition during the last four or five years must convince you, that there never was a more useless set of men than these said country magistrate squires, on the preserv- ing of whom in opulence—if you believe them—the welfare of the country depends." He then goes on to attack the lay impropriators in language equally violent: and, to show the ground and spirit from whence these vituperative attacks spring up, I will read one extract from this publication. "It is so obvious," he says "that nothing whatever is given to you for this part of your property (meaning tithes), that further remark must be needless. All I shall do is, to express my extreme surprise that you have so long and so patiently submitted to this species of plunder, merely because it is ordained by the law." Merely because it is ordained by the law! I think these words are pregnant with meaning, and can be intended to produce but one result—that of instigating the tenantry against their landlords. He evidently holds out to them that they have a right to stand forward and upset the law. Well, I will leave it to the House to say whether a fair inference may not be drawn from it that it is the intent of Mr. Cohen in writing this paragraph to instigate the tenantry against their landlords. The design is a wicked one; but I do feel most confident that the farmers of Sussex have such a respect for their landlords, arising from a full conviction of the mutuality of their interests, that it is not to be weaned by any such writing as this; and that they will read it with that disgust and contempt which it justly merits.

Mr. Hughes Hughes

was sorry to have listened to the remarks of the hon. member for Newport. A more useful set of men did not exist than the unpaid magistrates. He was surprised to hear the hon. member for Newport defend that paragraph as if the paper were a paragon of perfection; he (Mr. Hughes) had not the pleasure of reading the Brighton Guardian regularly, but it was much read in that part of the country with which he was connected on account of its gross personalities, and consequently, his (Mr. Hughes's] attention was frequently called to it, and principally because it abounded in personal slander.

Mr. Feargus O'Connor

said, the conduct of the noble Lord, the member for King's Lynn, was conduct most worthy of him; and if followed by other hon. Gentlemen would make this libel harmless. The noble Lord had stated that his family had been frequently abused by this paper, and he had thought it better to let them die away by taking no notice of them; and he was right, for nothing that was said in any paper could disparage his family. This was a wise and sensible course of proceeding. With respect to the speech of the noble Lord, the Under Secretary of State, he must say the noble Lord had jumped at a conclusion, for he defied any one to make head or tail of it. The noble Lord said, the royal prerogative should not be used; he contended that it should never he used unless to punish and not to spare. The noble Lord hoped the mover and seconder would not press a division, because the Ministers would not interfere. Then the noble Lord said this was a private libel, and he was not for punishing editors for attacking public individuals; but he (Mr. O'Connor) maintained that this was a public libel. The libel of which Mr. Cohen was accused was not a libel on any individual, but a libel on the Magistrates; and he (Mr. O'Connor could very fairly enter into the feelings of the noble Lord; but he should recollect that this very attack on the Magistrates had been allowed by the Judge not to have incited to incendiarism; and many Members in that House had thought it had considerably checked incendiarism, and stated, that there had been no fires in Sussex after it appeared. That was a very good proof of it he thought. Then the noble Lord, the Under Secretary of State, went further, and said this man had already been convicted of four libels. Now, if this proved any thing, it proved that Mr. Cohen did not know when he was writing a libel. For what man could say what was a libel? It really was too bad, just at the time that very House,—a Reformed House of Commons,—was going to abolish at least to remodel, the law of libel, that Mr. Cohen should be suffering an unmerited degree of punishment. The last speaker had said, that even under the Bill of the hon. member for Dublin, this would have been a libel. He denied it. It would not be a libel; and he thought, that if this Bill should pass into a law, while Mr. Cohen was suffering imprisonment, it would be a very hard case. But perhaps the right hon. Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Littleton) would not let that Bill be carried. No; but that was no reason, if the Bill was a good one, why it should not be passed. He was not going to prop up Mr. Cohen and say he was not wrong in attacking the Magistrates; he was not going to say the Magistrates were not doing right in carrying on this prosecution; but he would say, were they (the House) to sit as judges and jurors and judge of every libel, he asked were they to judge of every libel written in every paper? There had been several paragraphs read out of the Brighton Guardian, which were not in the libel at all. They were refusing to interfere in the matter; and he objected to their reading any paragraph not connected with the libel, on the ground of its not being connected with what was before the House. He asked if it was not just, that this libel should stand on its own merits? Suppose even that this was an unfair attack on the Magistrates, the Poor-law Commissioners had attacked them much more severely, then was it either fair or just to inflict a punishment upon Mr. Cohen for entertaining their opinions? The Law of Libel could not, must not continue, because it was unfair, and unjust. If there was any reason why the Crown should not interfere in this case, he hoped the noble Lord would tell them what it was. Mr. Cohen had, in his petition to that House, pursued the only proper course left him.

Lord Althorp

said, that a continuance of the same course for which he had been prosecuted, was some and a sufficient reason for not showing him favour.

Sir Charles Blunt

said, that what he said should be brief and to the point. He had been applied to by a large body of his constituents to support this Motion, and he could cheerfully do so as he was no party to the prosecution. The reasons why he was no party to this prosecution, perhaps the House would be so indulgent as to allow him to state. He was no party to that prosecution, because he thought that it was impolitic, and only calculated to revive the discussion of matters which had occurred two years ago, and of a subject which had almost been forgotten; and that the country in 1833, was recovering from that excitement which it had for two years laboured under. And he also refused to be a party to that prosecution, for another reason; and that was, that he considered that the Magistracy were not exactly that source whence a prosecution for libel, either affecting the liberty of the Press, or the subject, should arise. These reasons might not have much weight with the House, but he had a third reason, which he was satisfied would have weight with the House in favour of the Motion; and that was, that he was enabled to state to the House as a positive fact, that Mr. Cohen, the petitioner, previous to his trial, was ready to come forward and acknowledge himself not the author of the libel that he published; that he was ready to give up the name of the author, and to make every atonement in his power for having inadvertently admitted into the columns of his paper the paragraph prosecuted; and that offer ought to have been accepted. Having the character of a Magistrate to maintain, he (Sir C. Blunt) felt it his duty to himself to avow that he was no party to this prosecution; and he thought it a disgrace to the country, that such a prosecution should be commenced. Now, let him say a word about the Gentleman who had stood forward as the champion of the Magistracy. He could not help offering that Gentleman his tribute of praise. He knew him to be a zealous and efficient Magistrate, but his (Sir C. Blunt's) calm opinion was, that, on this occasion, he was wrong; that he had instituted this prosecution under a mistaken impression of duty; and that if the Gentleman looked back upon what he had done, he would regret being placed in the situation in which he now was. Knowing him well and his character as a respectable and honourable man, he could not do otherwise than speak justly of him. They were the three reasons which he had to submit to the House; and if the hon. Member who proposed the Motion, divided the House, he should certainly feel it his duty to support it.

Lord William Lennox

was happy that the hon. Baronet who addressed the House last had touched upon the same point, which he (Lord W. Lennox) was going to state—namely, that Mr. Cohen had offered to give up the name of the person who sent him the paragraph. That was one reason why his case should be considered by that House. Then there was another circumstance which ought to be taken in Mr. Cohen's favour, which was, that though fires had taken place up to the time of the paragraph alluded to appearing in the Brighton Guardian, yet not one fire had happened in the county of Sussex between that time and the trial. Then there was another point which ought to operate in Mr. Cohen's favour. He had been accused by the Magistracy of Sussex,—than whom a more respectable body did not exist,—he was accused by them of exciting the peasantry of Sussex to acts of incendiarism. He had suffered through that accusation, and his newspaper had suffered, because there was not any man of respectability who would take it in, or read it, if he thought the editor advocated such principles. Then he was brought up for judgment and honourably, acquitted of that charge; the Judge entirely exonerated him of such intention. As regarded the libel on the Magistrates, it was undoubtedly a libel; but the question now was, whether these points he had mentioned ought not to operate in Mr. Cohen's favour. He would now refer to the paragraph which had appeared since Mr. Cohen had been in prison, and which had been quoted by his noble relative (Lord G. Lennox). When his noble relative read the paragraph about the people being trampled upon like clods of earth, it reminded him (Lord W. Lennox) of what had been stated by another noble relation of his (the Duke of Richmond), a member of the other House, who, in moving under the Wellington Administration for an inquiry into the Poor-laws, and the state of the labouring poor, stated, as his reason for so doing, that there were more than 100 labourers of Sussex working on the roads for sixpence a day, and obliged to find their own tools. After that, would not any newspaper man be justified in saying that the people were crushed like clods? Now, there was another point he would draw attention to, and then he should have done, as he did not want to occupy too much of their time. An allusion had been made, and it ought to have no effect upon the House, to an advertisement calling upon the High Constable of Brighton to convene a public meeting, or private meeting of the inhabitants, in consequence of, as it was alleged, Mr. Cohen having attacked his Majesty; he could only say, no one would deprecate any words disrespectful to his Majesty more than himself; but he was in hopes they should have heard what this meeting did,—and though the name of Mr. Wigney had been introduced, and he believed that Mr. W. Wigney, jun., was a very respectable person, he might certainly have been persuaded to sign a requisition calling a meeting; but the mere act of signing a requisition for calling a meeting would go for nothing, and, besides, nothing had come of that meeting, which could not have been the case if the alleged "atrocious attack" had deserved any serious notice. Perhaps the House did not know that the Brighton people were very sensitive on any matter relating to his Majesty; the least thing said against the King would frighten them out of their wits,—not because they were more loyal than others; on the contrary they were great radicals; but because they were afraid the Court would spend less money amongst them. He took it for granted, then, that no stress should be laid on the advertisement for calling the meeting, as it would have been followed up if the matter was considered to call for it; and in his opinion, if the attack upon his Majesty had been a libel, the people who signed that requisition would have been as guilty as Mr. Cohen for not having carried it through. If there was a division, he should certainly vote for the Motion, for they had never heard what had become of the libel on his Majesty.

Sir Charles Burrell

said, that an hon. Gentleman had stated, that the Poor-law Commissioners had found fault with the Magistracy; but the hon. Gentleman should recollect that they had found fault, with the Magistrates of the midland counties as well as those of Sussex; and, therefore, observed the hon. Baronet, "We are all in the scrape." The Poor-law Commissioners, however, did not find fault with the Magistracy for too much severity, but for being wasteful and profuse in making orders for the poor. Their's was not a ground of objection on the score of severity, but rather for their over indulgence. The hon. Member did not seem to have read the Poor-law Commissioners' Report sufficiently to understand it. With regard to the observations made with respect to a friend of his, the prosecutor in this case, he could state, from the authority of a letter which he had got, that every word which the noble Lord (Lord George Lennox) had stated with regard to that hon. Gentleman was perfectly true, He was brought in to this affair by accident; it was by the request of his brother Magistrates that he took it up; he did not put himself forward; but when they proposed it to him he said, "I shall never flinch from what I consider, and my brother Magistrates consider, it is my duty to do." To this day he (Mr. Mabbott) did not repent it; he believed it was his duty; and he had stated that was it to be done again he would do it He would do what his brother Magistrate considered was his duty to his country. He was an honourable man, and possessed as much humanity of disposition as any man and it was too much for the man that was prosecuted to state what he had of that Gentleman. It was a very singular thing as it had been already observed that, in the very paper in which Mr. Cohen had given an account of the Debate which took place on the presentation of his petition, the following week after he had petitioned that House to release him from prison, there was an article almost as libellous as that which he now suffered for. Here was one paragraph which he would just read to the House. Mr. Cohen said:—"To preserve order is the duty of the Magistrates; and your present knowledge of the state of the country, as well as your recollection of its condition during the last four or five years, must convince you that there never was a more useless set of men than these said country Magistrate Squires, on the preserving of whom in opulence, if you believe them, the welfare of the country depends. If one of your labourers were to undertake to make a ditch, and was unable to perform his task, you would turn him away as a worthless impostor; but our parson and squire Magistrates have undertaken to preserve order; and the proof of their inutility is your present condition." Now, he begged to observe, that there was not one clergyman in the county of Sussex on the commission of the peace; there never had been, within his memory, or in the recollection of any man living; for there had always been found sufficient gentlemen to serve without them, and they did not wish to call upon clergymen to do that which at best was looked upon as an invidious office. Mr. Cohen continued:—"Not that I give them credit for being able to preserve order; they cannot. They are quacks and impostors who receive money and respect from you under pretence of doing that which neither they nor any other person can perform." Now was it to be tolerated that Magistrates were to be called quacks and impostors, as Mr. Cohen had stated them to be. This was the language of the individual who came forward to pray for a remission of his punishment, and at the time he was pleading for a remission of his sentence he attacked the magistracy in this way! He left it to the House to judge, whether, under circumstances which showed so little contrition, Mr. Cohen was entitled to the clemency of that House? He thought the House would use its powers extremely ill in interfering with courts of justice, so long as those courts did nothing improper, so long as they did their duty. It was also the duty of the courts and that House to uphold the Magistrates. As to the office of a Magistrate several observations had been made; he had for many years been a Magistrate, and he could for one say, that he had found its duties very irksome, and he should be very glad to decline the office if he were sure they would be able to find efficient justices without him; but he would not shrink from the performance of those duties, while he considered he could be of any service to the country.

Mr. Herbert Curteis

said, he coincided in all that the hon. Baronet (Sir C. Burrell) had stated with regard to the prosecutor; but, at the same time, he must state, that this was not a prosecution undertaken by the Magistrates of Sussex, but that that gentleman (Mr. Mabbott) was put forward as the tool of certain other gentlemen who did not like to show themselves, and to that very moment no other person had appeared who prosecuted. He, with others, who, in the first instance, tried to stay this prosecution, because they considered it more likely to do harm than good; for if the publication had done harm, the prosecution had done more, because it caused the paragraph to be circulated a hundred times more; whereas he was convinced, that if it had been left alone, after a short time it would have been forgotten, and have sunk into complete and utter oblivion. After having tried to stop the prosecution, which they failed in, he and his friends afterwards felt bound, when called upon, to put in an affidavit to mitigate the punishment of Mr. Cohen. He did not regret having done so, if he thought that that affidavit went at all to lessen the punishment. In that affidavit he said, that he had been for along time a reader of the "Brighton Guardian," and that he did not think the editor could be justly charged with having excited the peasantry to acts of violence; and he went on to state in the same affidavit (well and cautiously worded), that, on the contrary, he believed that at the time of the fires there were many articles published in that paper which went highly to condemn and point out to the rustic population the wickedness of the fires. In giving this opinion, though he might have offended some brother Magistrates, yet he did not hesitate to put in that affidavit; and he would not hesitate to say that this was a case of great severity. As for the charge of bringing the Sussex Magistrates into contempt, he, as a Magistrate, would scorn such newspaper paragraphs. If the papers chose to abuse him he cared not for it; he was known to his friends and his neighbours; and he trusted they would not be influenced by them, but do him justice if he deserved it; and therefore he hesitated not to say, that this prosecution—brought forward, he had no doubt, by persons actuated by upright intentions—but he repeated, it had done more, infinitely more, mischief than good. He could bear out what the hon. member for Lewes (Sir C. Blunt) had said, namely, that the editor of the "Brighton Guardian" was quite ready to make any reasonable apology for having inserted this attack on the Magistrates, and to state his regret for bringing the Magistrates into disrepute; and, in justice to his own character, he expressly stated, that he would not submit to the charge of having excited the peasantry to acts of violence. In conclusion, he would only say that, if the hon. member for Brighton pressed the question to a division, he (Mr. Curteis) should vote in favour of the Motion.

Major Beauclerk

regretted that he had to address the House on this subject. He wished there had been no occasion for his so doing, but he wished to see equal justice dealt out to every individual. He must look on this as a case of exceeding hardship. Mr. Cohen had been sentenced to six months' imprisonment, and taken from his own home into a foreign country. Gentlemen might laugh, but he called it a foreign country. Mr. Cohen was taken from his home to a foreign country; and now his Majesty's Ministers had sat out the whole House, at half-past two o'clock, to have the satisfaction of saying that the Whig Administration had shut up this individual. The whole Administration and their friends would get the credit for this act. He spoke the sentiments of the country, when he said that it was to-morrow morning to go forth to the country, that the liberal Whig Administration had made another victim to the Libel-law. It was evident to every man, that the Whigs had abused it more than any administration which had been in existence for some years, for so short a time. Yet he did expect, that this unfortunate individual, who was allowed by all parties—even by his hon. friend, who thought him guilty of a libel on the Magistrates—to have been harshly treated, and that six months' imprisonment was an exceedingly hard punishment. Mr. Cohen had all the prejudices of the country to stand against, and he was now punished for a crime which Lord Brougham was the first to commit in that very House. Did not Lord Brougham hold up the Magistrates to reproach and contempt more than any paper ever had done? And now this individual, who, because he did not happen to publish a Whig paper, was to he singled out for severe chastisement.

Mr. Wigney

, in reply, said, that, as the House were so anxious to come to a conclusion on this matter, he should not obtrude long upon their time. He should observe upon one of the points mentioned by the noble Lord, the member for West Sussex, that he had rather unfairly brought before the House what this individual, Mr. Cohen, had said subsequently to the present affair. Now, that ought not to have been mentioned; and he was sorry to observe that the hon. members for Shoreham had taken the same course. It was rather unfair to take up a paper and pick out certain paragraphs without the context. Why, in that way, they might extract libels from any paper. There was one other point which he must allude to, and which had been skilfully handled by his noble friend, the hon. member for King's Lynn; that was, that a requisition had been got up against this unfortunate individual, and signed by a relation of his (Mr. Wigney's) because this editor, in the course of a discussion upon a political subject, did in his paper state that which it was thought tended to libel his Majesty; so the requisitionists, without taking the subject into consideration, determined to call a meeting; they did, and it evaporated. Without saying another word upon the subject, he must beg leave to take the sense of the House upon his Motion.

The House divided—Ayes 27; Noes 58: Majority 81.

List of the AYES.
Aglionby, H. A. O'Dwyer, A. C.
Blake, M. J. O'Connor, F.
Beauclerk, Major Ord, W. H.
Blunt, Sir C. R. Pease, J.
Buller, C. Ruthven, E. S.
Curteis, H. B. Ruthven, E.
Curteis, Capt. E. B. Roebuck, J. A.
Gully, J. Vigors, N. A.
Faithfull, G. Walter, J.
Fitzsimon, C. Wason, R.
Hawkins, J. H. Wallace, T.
Hume, J. TELLERS.
Lalor, P. Kemp, T. R.
Lennox, Lord W. Wigney, J. N.