Lords Sitting of 18 April 1831

MINUTES.
Bill. Civil List, read a second time.
Petitions presented. In favour of Reform, by his Royal Highness the Duke of SUSSEX, from Hammersmith, Kensington, Halifax, and St. Luke's, Middlesex:— By the Earl of CARLISLE, from Banf:—By Lord DURHAM, from the Ward of Bridge:—By the Earl of FIFE, from Stannington. By the Earl of HAREWOOD, from two places in Yorkshire, against the Register Bill; from Kingston-upon-Hull, against the monopoly of the East India Company; and from the Worsted Spinners of Yorkshire, against part of the Bill for Regulating the Hours of Working in Factories. By Lord SUFFIELD, from several places in Norfolk, against Slavery.

MINISTERIAL PLAN OF REFORM.
Viscount Hoodpresented a Petition from the county of Warwick in favour of the Reform Bill.
The Earl of Warwickhad no objection to receive the petition; but he wished it to be understood that it was signed only by the High Sheriff, and did not represent the sentiments of the whole county of Warwick.
The Earl of Eldonrose to say a few words; but gave way to
Lord Calthorpe Lord Calthorpe, who expressed his regret that a measure of such importance, casting a stigma on both Houses of Parliament should have been brought forward without due deliberation. It was a measure requiring the most patient attention and the greatest care—and this measure, it appeared, had received neither. He regretted, too, that any allusion should ever have been made to the will of the Sovereign, to promote a measure that demanded the greatest coolness. He lamented, also, that it should have been propounded to the people when in a state of excitement, so that they were prevented from forming a cool opinion on

1471
the subject. He begged it might be understood, that in making these remarks, he had no hostility to the Ministers; but he wished their scheme, which to him appeared wild and bewildering, to lie over for another Session.
The Earl of Eldonwas not going to discuss the Reform Bill, when the only question before the House was, whether or not the petition should be received. He wished then to observe, that the whole of their Lordships proceedings, in relation to the Bill then before the other House, had been more irregular than anything he had ever known in the whole course of his parliamentary life. He would not enter into any arguments on the subject; he would only say, that he hoped their Lordships would take care how such irregular conduct was drawn in to establish a precedent; and to prevent this, when the present motion was disposed of, he would submit a proposition to their Lordships.
The Earl of Walsinghamdeclared himself opposed to every kind and species of disfranchisement.
The Earl of Harewooddid not mean to discuss the subject to which the petition related; but there were some matters connected with the conduct held with regard to that Bill, which he thought it his duty, as a Peer and a subject, to advert to. The Bill had been proposed to the House of Commons by the Government in a complete state of excitement, and when the people were also in a state of excitement; and means had been used to make them come to a conclusion on these important matters which they would not have formed under the influence of a calm judgment. That House, too, had heard—and very sorry he was that it ever had heard— something in the nature of a threat directed against both Houses of Parliament. The other House of Parliament had been threatened with a dissolution, and that House, though not threatened with a dissolution and re-election, had had intimated to it that there was danger to that House in refusing its consent to the measure. He did think that, for any purpose, to make use of such threats was very disrespectful. It was impossible also for the Government to carry on a business of that nature, and not be acquainted with the proceedings of the Press. That Press he respected in common with other men; but, at the same time, if he were a member of the Government, and found that Press
1472
advocating his cause in a manner that threatened the existence of the Parliament, and almost the safety of the Crown, could he allow the Press so to proceed? He would not say that he would stop it by coming into collision with its proceedings; but he should think it his duty, in that situation, at least, to disclaim the arguments by which the Press was supporting his cause. A measure of that nature, perhaps, ought not to be brought forward at a time of such discontent; and it was the duty of the Government not to have proposed such a measure, when the country was in a state of excitement from causes external to the country; but they ought to have waited till the country was restored to a state of satisfaction. He was old enough to remember former times. In looking at the subject now moved, he found himself carried back to former times, and general principles. He was old enough to remember what passed after the first French Revolution, and there were many circumstances now in connexion with this Bill, not dissimilar to those of that period. Another remark which he considered it his serious duty to make was this:—he could not conceive that any person except one willing to risk the great injury to the country which the present opportunity of the excited state of the public mind,. from extraordinary circumstances afforded, would bring forward a measure of that kind which had not been sufficiently considered. Was this a time to take advantage of that excitement? The noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) knew the transactions which had occurred in a county with which they were both then connected. He admired that noble Lord's great ability, and knew the great extent of his general information, and he had been anxious to hear his explanation, and know what plan of Reform he recommended. He was pleased then to hear the noble and learned Lord propose a plan which he conceived went to remedy the defects of the Representation. The noble and learned Lord described himself as the champion of Reform, and he had stated, that he would be ready to give one Member to such a number of voters as would enable the elections to be concluded within a reasonable time, and avoid the expense and inconvenience that now accrued from a protracted contest. He spoke, too, of doing away out-voters, and giving votes to copyholders. Those were,

1473
he believed, the chief alterations then proposed by the noble and learned Lord. He wished to ask why the noble and learned Lord now agreed to a measure so different from the one he had formerly recommended? Whether that noble and learned Lord had changed his former opinion or not was not for him to say. Such a Bill, though received favourably by the public, had created great confusion throughout the country, and seemed to him a premature and unprepared measure. The more he examined it, the more he was confirmed in this opinion. He begged pardon for saying one word on the subject, but it excited in him great interest, and weighed upon his mind. He believed, that discussion would throw light upon it, and make the people better understand it. He was not an enemy to alterations, if made at suitable times, but he could not support the Reform Bill. The noble Lord concluded by declaring that his opinions were not, either on that or on any other subject formed with a view to popularity.
Earl Greyentirely agreed with the noble Earl opposite in one of his remarks, in thinking that the discussion of the question of Reform could not be attended with any disadvantage, because he considered that the measure would gain much by discussion; therefore it was, that to discussion at a proper time he had never shown himself adverse; nay, even at irregular opportunities, although the noble Lord on the cross-bench deprecated discussions on such occasions as unusual and irregular, he did not feel himself called on to oppose their Lordships' entering into a Debate, as there was a disposition in the House to entertain the subject; neither did he think himself precluded from taking the opportunity to vindicate that measure, for which he, in common with his colleagues, stood responsible; and to endeavour to remove, as far as he could, the misapprehensions with which it had been received by some individuals. He was the last man to impute to the noble Lord any desire of popularity, nor did he know any thing that had passed on the present occasion, either by sign or look, that could have induced the noble Earl to enter into a vindication of his own motives in relation to this question. Undoubtedly popularity was not the course which the noble Lord could be justly accused of pursuing; but he must congratulate the noble Earl and the pub-
1474
lic on at least one good effect of the Reform measure—namely, that the noble Lord, who on every occasion that this question of Reform had presented itself— Reform, either extensive or limited—Reform even confined to the transfer of the abused franchise of a decayed borough to a great and opulent town—that he whom, till this night's Debate, no man in the House or in the country had ever heard acknowledge that under any circumstances, at any time, or in any degree, should any proposition for the amendment of the Representation be assented to, had at length learnt from these discussions that some Reform was necessary, and now professed himself ready to agree to some changes. Amidst all the imputations cast upon his Majesty's Ministers—amidst all the objections offered to their measure—the proposition was at least entitled to the credit of this good effect, that it had produced in the noble Lord's mind at last a conviction that some Reform was indispensable. And even to. that Reform intended to be brought forward by his noble and learned friend on the Woolsack (and which he regretted that his noble friend had not been able to propose in the House of Commons, were it only for the sake of seeing the votes upon it), the noble Earl, it seemed, would have consented, although till this moment nobody had ever heard any thing from him but the most violent declarations against Reform generally. He did not intend to go into a refutation of all the noble Lord's observations, but there were one or two things which the noble Earl had stated, that he could not suffer to pass without remark. By the way, the noble Lord had shown by what he stated, that he was not present during the Debates on this question; for if he had attended the discussions, it would have been impossible for him to have stated that any threat or intimidation had been used upon the Ministerial side of the House. With respect to one particular threat alluded to by the noble Lord, he himself, so far from resorting to, had disclaimed it, stating that he neither possessed the inclination, nor was armed with the authority, to use it; at the same time he stated, that he felt fully committed to the measure of Reform brought forward by himself and his colleagues, and that he was prepared to advise the adoption of whatever means could be resorted to in a constitutional way for its accomplishment. With respect to the

1475
other more general threat, he wished to know to what extent the noble Lord wished to carry it. He said, that not only had the other House been threatened with a dissolution, but their Lordships had been menaced with the consequences that might ensue from the rejection of the measure. Was it to be described as a threat, if taking all the bearings of the question and arguing upon them, different persons on one side or the other chose to point out the dangers that might result from a decision contrary to that which they believed to be advantageous to the country? If this species of argument were to be objected to as involving a menace, it would preclude the use of an important branch of consideration in the hands of any statesman, and in relation to many subjects where the question was—what did the circumstances of the country require; and what were the consequences likely to arise from the adoption or rejection of any given measure? Was it possible to discuss public measures and avoid mentioning such topics? Was the noble Duke opposite (Wellington) accused of threatening the Legislature, when he stated, three Sessions ago, as one of the chief grounds of the Catholic Relief Bill, the evil effects that had resulted, and were likely to result, from the measure not being granted, and when he held up to their Lordships the dangerous state of Ireland, present and prospective, in the event of its failure? Was the noble Duke accused of menace because he declared that, should that bill fail it would be impossible for the Government to be conducted as heretofore, and that, knowing the evils of war, he deprecated as more distressing than any other the evils of a civil war? These sentiments were not considered as threats, but as fair and legitimate statements, calculated to justify the noble Duke's motives in bringing forward the measure. He was not aware of any thing different from this in principle being said on the present occasion. He did think that there was a strong feeling in the public mind on this question, as indeed the noble Lord expressly acknowledged when he talked of excitement; and certainly every man who considered the state of popular feeling must also take into consideration the effects which the rejection or accomplishment of the measure was likely to produce. Disclaiming any thing like the use of threats in support of the measure, or any thing
1476
beyond a fair and constitutional line of argument, and looking at the general state of the country, he contended that it was wise and politic to look to consequences. If danger had been stated on one side as likely to result from the rejection, was not danger asserted by the other to be the consequence of the adoption of the measure? He did not complain of this mode of arguing in the opponents of Reform as involving threats, but was it not as like a threat as the same species of reasoning when employed by the supporters of the Bill? If the noble Lord's complaint applied to the friends of the measure, it was at least equally applicable to its enemies. "But," said the noble Lord, "it was improper in his Majesty's Government to introduce this question at a period of excitement." Now, that some such measure was generally looked for—that the country was calling for it, he certainly thought. He had stated this fact before he came into office, and he had repeated it since. Further, he had stated his firm conviction, that compliance with the public wish in this respect would be of the greatest importance to the public tranquillity; he had stated this, and on this principle he had recommended the measure to his Majesty. The question he proposed was, whether the strong excitement that so generally prevailed was more likely to be increased, and made more dangerous, by attending to the wishes of the people, than by pertinaciously withholding those changes, to which they looked forward as a source of positive and incalculable benefit as well as a relief from their grievances. It was upon this consideration that he had to make up his mind, and feeling that the balance preponderated infinitely in favour of the former alternative, it was on this ground that he and his colleagues had proposed the measure of Reform, and not with a view to increase, but, on the contrary, to diminish the existing excitement, as well as to prevent its recurrence. He had never taken any step to promote the getting up of petitions upon the subject, and whatever endeavours might have been used by persons on the other side of the question, he would say, that there never was a more spontaneous expression of feeling on the part of the people. On no occasion had there been so fervent and unanimous a popular feeling in favour of any public measure. He would now briefly allude to what had been said respecting the Reform

1477
Bill being a hasty and an ill-prepared measure. Whether this were the case or not, would appear when the measure came before the House; all that he could say was, that he had been convinced of the necessity of proposing some measure upon the subject, and both he and his colleagues had given their most anxious attention to the best means of carrying such a measure into effect. The Bill might be appealed to in defence of his conduct; but it was not a hasty measure, it was not brought forward without consideration; nor was it without the most careful examination that the plan had been proposed to Parliament. If he had failed in producing a good measure, it must be attributed to his want of ability, and certainly not to his want of care. The noble Lord had then asked, whether he was aware of the state of the public Press. He had asked whether he read the daily libels, the violent attacks upon all persons opposed to the measure, and the vehement addresses made to the passions of the people in order to excite them. The noble Lord had hardly uttered these expressions, before it was evident that he felt the impropriety of them. Could any man ask him how he could put down the publication of the articles that appeared in the Press? He never had had much communication with the Press at any period of his life, and he now knew no person whatever that conducted a public paper. He must confess, that he had seen much to disapprove of in the public journals, but he had likewise seen much which excited his admiration, and which he believed to be calculated to produce great public benefit. At the present moment the daily Press of the country displayed more ability than it ever had done at any former period. But was he to be called upon to disavow or discountenance what appeared in the newspapers? Really he found that he had a great deal to do, both in that House and out of it—much more than he found it convenient to perform—and if he were to have added to his duties that of coming down to that House and following the noble Lord into all the publications of which he might disapprove, he should say that it was a duty that never had been imposed upon any Minister, and one which he should feel himself unable to discharge. But he would ask, were the libels only on one side—was intemperance, was violence, was abuse, confined to only one side of this question? Could not the noble
1478
Lord lay his hands upon newspapers that poured out the most intemperate violence and rancorous abuse upon all persons who advocated the cause of Reform? Were they not vituperated as enemies to the country, as traitors to the Sovereign, and as persons actuated solely by desires to promote their own views? He (Lord Grey) had often been the subject of such attacks, but he had trusted his defence to the good sense, the intelligence, and probity of the public. He had heard other persons complain of being libelled by the Press, and he had been at the same time as much as any man exposed to such libellous attacks, but he thought he had done much better in not interfering. He had trusted his public conduct to public opinion, well knowing that no evil would arise from such a confidence, for truth would ultimately prevail, and compensate for any temporary confusion or inconvenience. He could not but deprecate the most inconvenient mode that was now pursued of getting into long debates when petitions were presented to the House, and he hoped the example of that night would not be drawn into a precedent. He was, however, anxious to discuss the question of Reform upon every possible opportunity, believing that the measure was founded upon the known and established principles of the Constitution, and that the more it was discussed the more it would gain upon the sober and temperate conviction of all men; and this alone was necessary to the complete success of the measure.
The Earl of Harewoodexplained that, in his opinion, there was a difference between opposing a particular measure, and being a party for or against Reform in the bulk. He did not require the noble Lord to control the public Press, but he thought it would be prudent on the part of Government to disavow some of the arguments which the Press advanced in favour of the measure.
The Petition to lie on the Table.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE,—CASE OF "THE TIMES."
The Earl of Limericksaid, that he did not rise to prolong the discussion upon the previous question before the House, but he felt himself compelled to get up and address their Lordships in order to rescue a single individual Member of that House, one who had long had the honour of sitting in it—from an attempt

1479
to cast a public odium upon his character. The question he was about to address their Lordships upon had nothing to do with a Reform of Parliament, but it had much to do with the privileges of that House, and with the freedom of Debate in both Houses of Parliament; which would be quite a farce if their Lordships were to be called to account every morning by the lords of the Press for what did not meet with their approbation. Was it to be allowed, that a newspaper should publish the Debates, not for the purpose of letting the world know what passed in that House, but of dealing out its abuse and threats against any Member who did not agree with that paper in opinion? For himself, he had only to say, that if any paper used threats against those Members of the Legislature who did not agree in the measure which it advocated, so far as he was concerned, he was determined to resist it. He never rose with greater reluctance or more unpleasant feelings than he then did, and nothing-should have induced him to address their Lordships upon the subject if he did not think that his personal character and honour were involved in the question he was about to bring before the House, for the calumny which had been cast upon him by the Press would continue to produce its effect until he took the mode he was about to adopt in order to answer it. Their Lordships might recollect a discussion that had taken place in that House on Friday last, when a noble Lord opposite (the Earl of Rosebery) had presented a petition, praying for the introduction of a system of Poor-laws into Ireland. It would be remembered that he (Lord Limerick) had addressed their Lordships upon the subject of the petition, and that he had differed from some of their Lordships on that occasion. The discussion in the first instance had not been brought on by him, but he had felt it his duty to address a few observations to their Lordships, not only on account of the nature and object of the petition, but because of the observations that had fallen from the noble Lord who had presented it. What he had said on that occasion was reported in a morning newspaper of the following day, and there appeared in the same paper an article or paragraph which reprobated him in the strongest terms—not, it was true, by name, but it described him so that it was impossible for any person to doubt to whom the writer intended to apply his
1480
attack. He was the last person in the United Kingdom who would wish to fetter the liberties of the public Press. He had always been favourable to the freedom of the Press, persuaded that it was the great promoter and preserver of the liberties of the country. He would repeat, that he was an advocate of the freedom of the press, and for that very reason he was an enemy to as licentiousness. He would ask noble Lords, what could be more mischievous than the license of the Press that sported with private character, that wounded the feelings of individuals by the basest insinuations or the most insidious calumnies? A great statesman of the last century, when speaking of the Press, had applied to it the terms of a "chartered libertine." If that statesman could now return to life, and see the Press in its present state, in what terms would he not describe it? He would describe it as a chartered tyrant—a tyrant that ruled all things—that pressed every thing under its feet. The newspaper to which he alluded was The Times of Saturday last. The article he had to complain of, and for which he should move that the editor of the paper be called to the bar of the House, began by describing him as a "thing," and it proceeded to accuse him of using brutal ridicule and impious scorn. He would put it to their Lordships, whether he should have been allowed to proceed for one moment in addressing that House if his conduct had been such as had been described, or such as to warrant the comments that the writer in the newspaper had passed upon it. It was well known, however, that he had not been interrupted in what he had addressed to their Lordships. The next point he should call the attention of the House to was, the writer in question attacking him as an Irish absentee. The writer said, "Will any man credit that an Irish absentee Lord could say what he is reported to have uttered in the House of Peers last night?" It was a novel doctrine, that because a gentleman refused to reside on one part of his property, and preferred residing on another, he should be accused of betraying the rights of the people, and of being unworthy of any consideration. How many of their Lordships who now heard him had estates in different parts of the kingdom, and they must either be absent from one or the other, or be divided and in different places at once. He was sorry

1481
to say, that that part of the south of Ireland in which his property was situated had got from bad to worse. The riotous conduct of the people in the county of Clare had spread into the county of Limerick, and bodies of 600 or 700 men went out in different directions, doing all the mischief they could, and committing every possible outrage. He would tell those who railed against absentees, that it was not so very pleasant as they might imagine for a person to reside amidst a population in such a state of disorder and excitement. It was not very pleasant to live in a country where a man's house must assume all the appearances of a garrison besieged—where the doors must be barricadoed and the windows barred—where a watch must be kept, and a man could not put his foot out at night if he had not an escort of armed policemen, or the protection of a body of troops, and even with this defence he could not be secure from attacks. When a country was in such a state as he had described, some apology might be made for absentees, and men might be allowed to live on other estates than those they possessed in such disturbed districts. He would beg their Lordships' attention whilst he read to them the whole of the paragraph he complained of, in The Times newspaper of Saturday: — "Yet mean, cruel, and atrocious as every civilized mind must consider the doctrine that Ireland has no need of Poor-laws, or some equivalent for them—hateful and abominable as is such a screen for inhumanity—there are men, or things with human pretensions, nay, with lofty privileges, who do not blush to treat the mere proposal of establishing a fund for the relief of the diseased or helpless Irish with brutal ridicule, or almost impious scorn. Will any man credit that an Irish absentee Lord could say what he is reported to have uttered in the House of Peers last night, when Lord Rosebery presented a petition, praying that a compulsory tax on land might be introduced into Ireland towards alleviating her poor? We shall not name him, because the House of Lords is armed with a thing called a bar, and other disagreeable appendages. But there are Members of that House who surprise nobody by declaring their indifference to popular odium, especially when they are at such a distance from Ireland as to ensure the safety of their persons." This was
1482
the paragraph which had appeared in The Times, and that paragraph he treated with the most sovereign contempt. He was well known in Ireland; he had had the misfortune to serve in that country during the Rebellion of 1798, and all such imputations as those now attempted to be cast upon him he could treat, and did treat, with the highest scorn. He apologized for having occupied the attention of the House so long; but he must say, that he hoped he should not be considered to have wasted the precious time of their Lordships, for the case was not merely personal to himself, as it involved the breach of their Lordships' highest and most valuable privileges—the freedom of discussion. He had endeavoured to abstain from all partial and personal statements. He had endeavoured to bring forward the question which concerned the privileges of free Debate, and he trusted that the House would call to the bar the person guilty of writing what he was sure their Lordships could not justify.
The Lord Chancellorreminded the noble Earl, that the course to be taken in such a case, where a complaint was made of a breach of the privileges of the House, was for the complainant to give in the paper complained of. Their Lordships would then have the paper read by the proper officer of the House, and it was then that the noble Earl might make what motion he might think fit.
The Earl of Limerickthen put in a copy of The Times newspaper of Saturday the 16th inst.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor, put the question, whether it was their Lordships' pleasure that the part of the paper complained of be now read. The question being followed by a cry of "read, read," the part of the article, as quoted above in Lord Limerick's speech, was read by the Clerk of the House.
The Earl of Limericksaid, that there could be no question that the paragraph alluded to him, for he was the only Peer that spoke upon the subject that night, except the noble Lord who presented the petition, and to whose observations the article in The Times did not apply.
Several Peers cried "Move, move, move;" and
The Earl of Limerickthen moved, "That the editor of The Times newspaper be ordered to attend at the bar of that House to-morrow."
The Earl of Haddingtonsaid, that before proceeding to move that the editor of the Paper should attend at the bar of the House, it was necessary that their Lordships should determine whether the paragraph in question were a libel or a breach of privilege.
The question was then put from the woolsack.
The Lord Chancellorperfectly agreed with the noble Earl that it was absolutely necessary for the House to protect its rights and privileges against all persons whatever, who, by conduct or speaking, or who, by writing or in printed papers, should make those privileges the subject of attack. At the same time he would deliver one humble observation, — an observation uttered to their Lordships in the way of very earnest and not injudicious and, he trusted, not unacceptable, advice— that the subject of all such conferences as that on the brink of which they now stood, brought their Lordships into very painful dilemmas, and ended in regrets that they had ever been embraced. The whole result of all his experience whilst he had held a seat in another place,—a place in which complaints of a similar description were much more frequent than in their Lordships' House,—was, that without any one exception to a speaker, or to what he might call a private person or private Member of the House, in no case did they ever get into a conference of such a description as that now proposed without afterwards repenting of it. He did not see any occasion to strengthen the privileges of the House in the way now proposed. If there were a clear and undoubted case of offence,—if there were a plain and manifest infringement of the privileges of their Lordships' House—if there were an indisputable outrage—an outrage manifest to the House itself—no man could doubt that it was a fit subject of investigation at their Lordships' bar, and no man could hesitate to say, that it was in their Lordships' power to deal with such an offence as they might think necessary for the defence of their privileges, and the support of their dignity. If, however, the conduct of a noble Lord was made the subject of an attack by the Press or otherwise, he could only observe that in citing the offender to the bar, he got into great difficulties by the rules of proceeding, and by the privileges of the House in their strict letter as they now stood. The privileges of the
1484
House were part of the law of the land, for they were given to the Houses of Parliament for the sake of the subject, and not for the convenience of the Member. The bare publication of the debates of either House was a breach of privilege, and no man could deny, that it was a breach of privilege to make observations upon the discussions of the House, even if such observations were not unfavourable to the noble Lord to whose speech they applied. Even the saying out of that House that a noble Peer, in the course of a discussion, had said so and so, was a breach of privilege; and to advert even in the most decorous language, and in the most respectful terms, to what any noble Lord had uttered in his seat was, past all controversy or contradiction, a decided breach of privilege. In point of fact, it was notorious that the privileges of that House were so extraordinary, that the very excess of the law, prevented its being put into practice. The privileges of Parliament were excessively cumbrous—they were excessively embarrassing in their application and in their operation; and the consequence was, that whenever a Member of either House called a person to the bar for a breach of privilege, he was obliged to he content at best with an ample submission and a complete apology. The printer of a Paper was the only person legally liable in such cases, and as it was impossible to avoid voting such a publication as that just read to be a breach of privilege, the case would be like a hundred others:—after a long debate upon the subject, every man, and most of all he who originated the proceeding, would wish to get rid of the difficulties, and be anxious that the whole affair should end. This was the result of all experience, not only of his own, but of all others with whom he had talked upon the subject. In his own mind this formed the most sound and exigent reason for inducing their Lordships to be extremely slow to interfere in any case except where the dignity of the House rendered interference absolutely unavoidable. He could not be suspected of approving of the paragraph which the noble Earl had read to the House, The expressions were coarse and indecent; but for his part he had no means of knowing to whom they applied, though the noble Earl had attributed them to himself. He was bound in truth and fairness to confess, that he had daily and weekly seen paragraphs and articles in newspapers ten thousand times

1485
worse than that now complained of. Ever since he had come into Parliament, he had seen articles in the Papers ten thousand times worse than this, and yet no Member of the House ever took any notice of them. What person had ever been twenty-five years in Parliament, taking an active part in political discussions, and had not been attacked in a manner that involved a breach of the privileges of the House. He was sure that the noble Duke near him (the Duke of Wellington), as well as himself, about two years ago had been the object of constant attacks, and compared to which, the article now complained of might be considered as the language of panegyric. The present attack was nothing compared to what the noble Duke and himself, as well as many noble Lords who now heard him, had weathered in their political course through the last few years. He had always disregarded these things, both upon principle, and from an experience of the extreme difficulties of meeting them by any parliamentary proceedings at the Bar of the House. He had always made it a rule to live upon his acts, to proceed upon his principles steadily and firmly, and to trust to the country for the defence of his reputation, being convinced that in the end truth would prevail: even if there were very little charity in the world, truth in such cases would always prevail, and prevail with an efficacy proportioned to the time and manner in which she had been suppressed. But he would call the attention of their Lordships to the words of this paragraph—"Will any man credit that an Irish absentee Lord could say what he is reported to have uttered." But where was he reported to have uttered this? To what report did this allude? If the proceeding were persevered in, it would be necessary that their Lordships should have before them not only this newspaper, The Times of Saturday last, but all other newspapers, or how could their Lordships ascertain what had been reported of the noble Earl and of his speech upon that occasion? In the situation in which he stood, he certainly should not think himself justified in dividing the House, if the noble Earl should think fit to press to a division; but he, for one, did not deem it right, that after such an abundant opportunity of clearing himself, and which was not at all necessary, the noble Earl should go to such an extreme. He trusted that the noble Earl would not do wrong in listening to
1486
him (Lord Brougham), and to his other friends, who advised him not to press the subject further. There never was a time when, in a period of political heat—at a period of great conflict,—and of much animosity,—he spoke of the daily Press— for he saw little more, and not much of that,—but there never was a time, when, under such circumstances of excitement, the daily Press was conducted with more ability or with greater purity. There were two modes by which the Press might attack individuals: there was the public attack, an attack against public conduct, guided upon public principles, and directed to a public object; and there was the method of assailing persons by private slander. He would say, and without fear of contradiction, that the daily Press did not deal half so much in personal private slander, as it had done even so recently as when he had first come into public life. It was of the highest utility to keep this great organ of communicating public discussion to the people as pure as possible; and if their Lordships showed a little tenderness to persons who it was evident had wholly moved upon public grounds, they would not be doing a little service to the community.
Lord Eldonrose and spoke in a low tone of voice, but just as he was becoming audible,
Lord Rolleexclaimed, "Silence at the bar! if silence is not obtained at the bar, I will—"
After a little confusion occasioned by this sudden interruption,
Lord Eldonproceeded. He maintained, that no man living could deny that the publication which had been read to the House was a libel, and the noble Earl (Limerick) was the only person in that! House to whom such a paragraph could apply. The paragraph not only attacked him on public grounds, but it charged him with inhumanity to the poor. This was a libel beyond all question, and it was for their Lordships to say, as the case had come before them, whether they would pass it over or not. He regretted to hear it asserted by so high an authority of that House, that when a complaint of a breach of privilege was made by a Member, the House was so weak that it would have to regret if it interfered. This declaration would amount to an absolute fiat to all publications whatever. If the noble Lord pressed his motion to a division, it would

1487
be impossible for him to do otherwise than vote for it.
The Earl of Haddingtonperfectly concurred with what had fallen from the noble and learned Lord who had just sat down. It was unquestionably a matter of discretion with the noble Earl whether he would bring forward the question or not, and he was not in the least surprised at his having brought it forward as he had done, for in so doing, he had performed what was not only beneficial to himself but useful to the privileges of their Lordships' House. What had fallen from the noble Lord on the Woolsack was however well worthy of their Lordships' consideration. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had told the House that for many years he had been the object of the attacks of the public Press, and that he had thought it right to pass them over unresented and unnoticed. In the very preeminent situation in which he stood he no doubt had done wisely, and had exercised a sound discretion. If, however, the noble and learned Lord had brought forward the case of an attack on himself, which involved the privileges of that House (for many personal attacks did not affect the privileges of Parliament), it still would have been equally possible for him not to have taken up the subject, and in not bringing the offender forward, the noble and learned Lord would in all probability have acted judiciously and wisely. But it was obvious that a good deal of difference existed between the noble and learned Lord, who was always before the public, and a private person who in either House of Parliament might take a part in the debate, and afterwards find that a newspaper had made his speech and his opinions the subject of such scurrilous and infamous attacks. The noble Earl had been held up to public odium for having delivered opinions which were designated as detestable. The noble Earl was held up to public hate, not by name or title, but, nevertheless, he was so designated that it was impossible for any rational man to doubt to whom the language was meant to apply. This was a real and strong infringement of the liberties and privileges of their Lordships, and since the noble Earl had brought it forward, it was utterly impossible for their Lordships to pass the case over, unless they were content to abandon their established rights and most essential privileges of debate. The noble
1488
and learned Lord on the Woolsack had said, that there never had been any period of equal excitement, in which the daily Press was so pure, and so free from private slander and from private malevolence. This was the praise that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had thought proper to bestow upon the public Press in its present condition. He would take the liberty of telling the noble and learned Lord, that the present being a period of great political excitement—a period when the passions of men were roused, and the strongest opinions were in violent collision—there were attacks made against individuals by the Press every day. It was notorious that the most virulent and vindictive attacks were daily made by the newspapers against those public characters that took a part against Reform, or who displeased the editors or writers of the Journals. It had become, in his opinion, necessary to show that there must be some limit, not to the liberty, but to the license of the Press. He had seen with the utmost indignation, — he would not say attacks, because they were so covered with artful language, which practised and experienced writers knew how to use, that they could not be called attacks, but he had seen insinuations by which there had been held up to public odium, the highest and most illustrious female in the country—a person whose sex whose indubitable virtues, and whose royal situation ought to have protected her from insinuations of such a nature. Perhaps he ought to apologise for having mentioned the subject, as it had no immediate or direct reference to the matter before the House. He trusted, that since his noble friend had brought the subject forward, he would persevere in his motion.
Lord Rolledeclared, that the noble Earl's proceeding was most proper, and if he persevered in it he should have his most cordial support.
The Lord Chancellorwould not protract a discussion that had already gone to such a length. All that he had done was to address his counsel to the noble Earl, but it must be in the recollection of every person who heard him, that at the same time that he had expressed his opinion, or had given his advice, he had added, that if the noble Earl thought proper, after what he (the Lord Chancellor) had said, to persist in his Motion, he (the Lord Chancellor) considered that in his situation he had no choice, and he should not think of oppos-

1489
ing the noble Earl's Motion, or of dividing the House. He regretted that the Motion had been made, but now that it was made, he did trust that it would be carried without one single dissentient voice. He heartily wished that more prudence had been observed, and that the House had not been dragged into the case; but since the noble Earl had dragged the House into such a proceeding, all that was left to him (the Lord Chancellor) was, to hope that their Lordships would adopt a prudent moderate, and temperate course. The attacks on an illustrious female that had been alluded to gave him the most unfeigned pain. He was not aware of them, and had never heard of them before. He should feel that he was wanting in his duty, both to his Sovereign and to the public, if he refrained from expressing his censure of such attacks, knowing, as he did, that they were totally unworthy of credit.
Lord Rollesaid, that no person in public or in private life could be of a more exalted character than the illustrious female who had been so calumniated by the public Press.
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid, that in the very Paper that had contained the attack now before their Lordships, had appeared an attack upon the illustrious person alluded to. The case, therefore, that had been brought before the House was a very aggravated one; and it was the more necessary to visit it with the displeasure of their Lordships. He thought if the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had done his duty he would have ordered the Attorney General to prosecute the Paper in question for the libel on the illustrious Lady. He should like to know why he had not. It was not only however on these occasions that such attacks had appeared in the Paper in question, for repeatedly upon former occasions there had been similar attacks, and four or five weeks ago he had observed libellous passages in that Newspaper; and since that, there had been a repetition of the course which the writer well knew must be offensive. He gave thanks to the noble Earl who had brought forward the Motion, and had called the attention of their Lordships to the publication. He was not of opinion that it would have been better to have avoided the subject. He could not agree with the noble Lord on the Woolsack, that the question should not have
1490
been mentioned. He thought quite otherwise. Noble Lords, in the libel before them, had been called "things," and he would put it to their Lordships to say whether it was pleasant for any Lord to be called a "thing," in a public Newspaper. This was not all, for not only had their Lordships been called "things," but they were designated as "things with human pretensions." No person could hesitate to say, that the calling of a Peer of that House "a thing," and "a thing with human pretensions," was a libel and a breach of privilege. What? because a noble Lord made a speech upon a public question of great interest, was he to be called "a thing with human pretensions?" This was an outrage from which the public would relieve the Parliament of this country. He would defy any man to read the paragraph and not to direct it to the noble Earl (Limerick.) When he heard the noble Lord on the Woolsack deliver himself on the case, he was so surprised at what he said, that he could hardly help thinking that the noble Lord was himself the writer of the article in The Times. He hoped in his conscience that such an apology would be exacted from the person to be brought to the Bar of the House, as would occasion the Press of the country to know that it was not to attack the sacred personages of the monarchy, and that the Parliament of England was not to be brought forward in such an indecent and abominable manner as to call a Peer a "thing with human pretensions."
The Earl of Limericksaid, that he should not have troubled their Lordships further on this occasion, but for one word which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had used in reference to the Motion which he (the Earl of Limerick) had felt it his duty now to bring forward. The noble and learned Lord had spoken of their Lordships having been "dragged into this proceeding." He wished to "drag" no one into this proceeding. He considered himself as the guardian of his own honour, he was determined to protect his honour, and he conceived it his duty to bring before the House that which he looked upon as an insult on their Lordships. The noble and learned Lord had referred to the first part of the paragraph as the worst; now he (the Earl of Limerick) as an Irishman, would refer to the concluding sentence of it, in which it was meant to be conveyed that he had hazarded in that House an

1491
opinion which he would be afraid to express elsewhere. He, as an Irishman, disdained ever to deny any thing that he had said, and he should be always ready to express in one place what he had said in another. He should, without any further observations on this occasion, press his Motion,
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that he had not used the word "drag" in reference to the conduct of the noble Earl on this occasion. What he meant was, that such was the nature of their Lordships' privileges, that when once the motion of the noble Lord was brought forward, the House must take it up as a matter of privilege; and he had instanced the reports of the proceedings in that House as a Breach of Privilege, to demonstrate the severe nature of them if they should be strictly acted upon. That was the sense, and in no other sense, in which he spoke, when he talked of their Lordships being necessarily dragged into a proceeding on this matter, when once it was brought under their notice. He should only add, in reference to what had fallen from the noble Marquis (Londonderry), that he never heard a more extraordinary charge than that which had been preferred against him by that noble Lord. The noble Marquis had asked him why he did not order the Attorney General to prosecute the libels which he stated had appeared in the public prints against an illustrious personage. The noble Lord's charge was a curious illustration of the non sequitur principle. He (the Lord Chancellor) having said, that he had never heard, up to that moment of such attacks, up started the noble Marquis, and asked him why he had not ordered the Attorney General to prosecute them? Now, he must repeat, that, having been out of town, he had never before heard of those attacks to which the noble Marquis appeared to allude.
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid, that if the noble and learned Lord had not heard of those attacks before, he had heard of them now, and he trusted that the noble Lord would act upon that information.
Lord Teynhamsaid, that having been present at the discussion on Friday, to which the paragraph complained of had reference, he felt it but an act of justice to the noble Earl (Limerick) to say, that nothing which fell from him on that occa-
1492
sion at all justified the attack made upon him in that paragraph. Though he was opposed in opinion to the noble Lord on the subject to which the discussion of that evening related, and though he thought that some description of Poor-laws was necessary in Ireland, he could not refrain from stating, that the noble Lord said nothing then to call down such an attack upon him. He hoped that this matter would afford to their Lordships a solemn warning on the subject of newspaper attacks. It was an evidence of the direction in which the waters flowed. They had seen what had happened in France—they had seen what the newspaper press had done in France, and they should take warning from that. After what they had seen, and after what had been done in France, he thought his Majesty's Government were bound to prosecute the calumnious attacks which proceeded from the public Press in this country.
Lord Rollesaid, that there were also other attacks proceeding from another quarter, which seriously deserved the attention of the Government. He wished to ask the noble Earl (Grey) whether representations had not been made to him of what had taken place at the Rotunda, and whether his attention had not been directed to publications proceeding from that place, containing the most scandalous attacks upon several of the most illustrious characters in the country, and whether he had not been called upon to put down the proceedings there by the intervention of a police force? Would the noble Earl state whether he had not received the papers containing the attacks to which he alluded?
Earl Greysaid, that certainly the meetings at the Rotunda, and the accounts of the proceedings there, had been mentioned to him. He reprobated such proceedings quite as much as the noble Lord did. The matter had not escaped the consideration of his Majesty's Ministers, but whether any measures would be adopted on the subject, he did not think himself called upon to state.
Lord Rollewished to know, whether, in the papers which had been laid before the noble Earl, there was one containing an attack upon the Archbishop of Canterbury? He meant to speak out; he never would flinch from his opinion, and he thought it his duty to call the attention,

1493
of his Majesty's Government to this subject.
Earl Greysaid, that certainly such papers had been laid before him, and that certainly there was one of them in which there was a representation made of the character of the Archbishop of Canterbury quite different from the real character of that venerable and esteemed Prelate.
Lord Rollewished to know, for he had a public duty to perform which he would discharge, whether these publications had been referred to his Majesty's Attorney General?
Earl Greysaid, that the papers were transmitted to the Attorney General; and that having thus discharged his duty, he had nothing further to communicate on the subject.
The question, "That the Printer of The Times be ordered to attend at the Bar of this House to-morrow," was then put, and carried.