Sitting of 10 May 1821

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—COMPLAINT OF THE "JOHN BULL" NEWSPAPER.
On the motion of Mr. Bennet, the order of the day was read for the attendance of Thomas Arrowsmith, William Shackle, Henry Fox Cooper, and R. T. Weaver. Mr. Arrowsmith accordingly appeared at the bar, and was examined as follows:
By Mr. Bennet.—Are you the proprietor of the newspaper called the "John Bull?"—I am not.
How long have you ceased to be the proprietor?—Since the 10th of February.
To whom did you give up the proprietorship of that paper?—To Mr. Weaver.
For what consideration?—None.
Was there any agreement, written or verbal, between you, that you were to receive a share of the profits of that paper? —None whatever.
Do you receive any of the profits?— Not any.
Are any of the proceeds paid into your hands?—The weekly profits are paid into my hands.
Do you keep a shop for printing in Johnson's court, Fleet-street?—I do.
Do you ever reside there?—Never.
Is that the place where the printing of the "John Bull" is set up?—Yes.
Does Weaver give you any compensation for the setting up of the printing there?—Not any.
In point of fact is he not your journeyman?—He is not now in that capacity.
Do you not pay him three guineas a week? We pay him nothing for "John Bull."
Does he not receive a salary?—He did receive a salary for reading proofs and for printing.
Was the "John Bull" his then?—No.
Are you in the habit of allowing journeymen and others in your employment to set up printing in your shop, on their own account?—It is not my shop in which Mr. Weaver prints.
Is it not on your premises?—There are two houses, in one of them the "John Bull" is set up.
634
Is that the next door?—Yes.
Who pays the rent of that house?—I do, and Weaver pays me.
What have you received as rent from him?—Nothing, as payment of rent, for I take it out of the proceeds of the paper.
How do the proceeds of the paper come into your hands?—From the publisher.
Who is he?—Mr. Weaver.
Do you say that the proceeds of the paper come to your hands through Mr. Weaver?—Yes, certainly.
All?—?Not all; there is the money for the advertisements, which comes through other hands.
Who pays the workmen?—Sometimes I do, sometimes my partner, and sometimes Mr. Weaver.
Do you generally pay the wages of the men?—No.
Then, if any one were to have said that you paid the wages of the men, would he not have stated that which was not true?—I do not pay the wages of the men on the "John Bull" generally; sometimes I do.
If any person had told the House that you did pay them, would he have told that which is not true?—It is not the fact certainly.
Did you employ Cooper as editor?— My partner did.
Who is he?—Mr. Shackle.
Was it done with your knowledge and consent?—Yes.
What salary was Cooper to receive?— Three guineas per week, with the understanding that it was to be increased if the paper got on.
Has he got any increase of salary since?—No.
What induced you to give up the proprietorship of the paper?—The idea that the paper would not succeed, and my being unable from want of time to read over all the proofs.
By Mr. Robert Smith.—Was there no agreement between you and Weaver as to the sum of money on the first commounication?—None.
No account to be given?—None.
To whom do the types of the "John Bull" belong?—They are ours.
Was Weaver to receive the profits?— Yes.
If the receipts of the paper were to exceed the expenses, you say Weaver was to receive the profits?—Yes.
If the expenses were to exceed the receipts, who would have to bear the loss—

635
you or Mr. Weaver?—We should bear the loss.
By Lord Nugent.—Did any written or oral agreement take place at the time Weaver got the paper, as the compensation he was to pay you?—There was an agreement made.
What were the terms?—That Mr. Weaver was to be the proprietor of the paper: we did not think at that time that the paper would have gone to the height it has; indeed, we thought we should lose by it in the end.
But Was there no agreement as to the compensation which Weaver was to pay you if it succeeded?—None.
One prosecution had been commenced against "John Bull?"—Yes.
How soon after this did you give it up?— Shortly after.
In what time after?—About three weeks after.
Was it in as short a time as three days after?—No; it was more.
By Mr. Smith.—How came it that you made so strange an agreement as you stated?—We started the paper, and risked the consequences.
What induced you to enter into an agreement of that sort, by which you could not gain, and might lose?—Because, if the paper did not succeed, it could be dropped.
By Mr. Wynn.—Have you ever paid any thing on account of the profits to Weaver?—Never.
Did you, in the oral agreement, reserve aright to drop the paper when you thought fit?—Yes.
This, you say, was about the 10th of February last?—Some time thereabouts.
Are you sure that it is more than two months?—Yes.
Did Weaver continue with you as a journeyman down to the time of the agreement you speak of?—Yes.
By Mr. Bennet.—Did you ever, after your having given it to Weaver, exercise any control over the articles inserted in the paper?—No; every thing was left to Mr. Cooper.
Did you see the manuscript of the articles which were inserted in the paper?—I might have seen some of them; but I did not; read them.
Did you ever see the manuscript of the article in question?—Not before it was printed.
Is it customary to keep the manuscript of articles inserted in the paper?—No.
636
Do you say it is not the practice in your printing-office?—Yes.
Is it the practice not to keep them in other offices?—I do not know.
Do you not know that the practice in other offices is the reverse?—No.
By Lord Nugent.—Had you any conversation with Weaver yesterday as to the order which he had received to attend?— Nothing more than that he told me he bad received the order.
What time did he tell you this?—I think about half past nine or ten in the morning.
Were you alone?—No; I think Mr. Cooper was present.
Are you positive that Cooper was present?—I am not certain.
By Sir R. Fergusson.—When did you first hear that Weaver was ordered to attend this House?—About ten yesterday.
And you then heard it for the first time? —Thereabouts.
And you say no conversation passed between you, except that Weaver told you he was ordered to attend the House?— None whatever.
Were you present in this House yesterday evening during, the examination of Weaver; and did you hear any of the questions asked?—I was not present, and did not hear any of the questions.
Have you had any communication with Weaver on the subject since yesterday?— Of course, on his coming to the office, I could not but ask him what had happened.
The witness was now ordered to withdraw, and, on the motion of Mr. Bennet, W. Shackle was brought to the bar and examined.
By Mr. Bennet.—Are you the proprietor of the paper called the "John Bull?" —Not now.
How long is it since you ceased to be the proprietor?—I believe in last February: I think about the time I had the honour of waiting upon you, sir.
What was the occasion of your having given up the proprietorship of the paper? — I candidly confess the idea of a prosecution was not pleasant.
Did Weaver make any compensation to you for the paper?—No, I asked for none.
Is he to make any hereafter if the paper should be profitable to him?—No.
Then you surrendered your share of the paper to him without receiving any remuneration at all?—None at all.
What situation did Weaver then hold?

637
—He had been in my service for some time.
In what situation?— As overseer.
What was his salary?—Two pounds a week for doing one thing or another.
What does he get now?—Three guineas a week.
What does he perform for this?—He has the superintendance of the paper.
What paper?—The "John Bull."
What do you pay him for the superintendance of his own paper?—It is all his own.
But then why not give all the profit to him, if it is all his own—what do you do with the rest?—We give him three guineas a week of his own: he gets the remainder when the accounts are settled, because he is sole proprietor.
But why pay him only a part of his own?—Because three guineas is all that is necessary now: he will have the balance hereafter.
How do you know he gets three guineas a week; who pays him?— Sometimes I pay him, sometimes Mr. Arrowsmith, and sometimes he pays himself.
Who receives the profits?—Sometimes Arrowsmith, and sometimes I myself, in trust for Weaver.
Have you no account current with Weaver, for whom you hold those profits in trust?—There are the books open to Weaver, and he may see the payments.
Who keeps those books?—Mr. Arrowsmith or myself, as occasion may happen.
Who is in possession of them?—There are two books at the office: I believe they are now lying on the desk.
I speak of the book of accounts current, in which are entered the monies received for the "John Bull?"—There are two; one, of the monies received; and another, of the monies paid for stamps and other disbursements.
To whom are the debts and credits entered?—There is no debtor and creditor account: there is only a plain statement of the receipts and expenses.
Are you in the habit of looking at the manuscript of the articles inserted in the "John Bull" before they are printed?— Sometimes I do see them.
Did you see the manuscript of the article in question?—I do not know that I did; I might or might not. The articles for insertion generally go from Mr. Cooper to the compositor.
Do you examine any of the manuscripts sent to the office of the "John Bull?"— Sometimes.
638
Do you take upon yourself to say, that you did hot see the manuscript of the paragraph in question before it was printed?—I cannot recollect; but I am quite clear that I did not read it till it was in print.
Did you appoint Cooper to be editor? —I did.
What was to be his salary? —Three guineas per week.
Is there any other editor?—No.
Was there ever any other?—Never.
Has he the sole management of the paper?—Yes.
Does he examine all the manuscripts before they go to the compositor?—Yes; and after they are printed.
Do you consider Cooper responsible to you?—He is responsible to Weaver.
Is he to you? — He is responsible to Mr. Weaver. When we transferred the paper to Mr. Weaver, we transferred, the services of Mr. Cooper also.
At the time that you had the paper, did you consider Cooper responsible to you? — I Considered myself as chiefly responsible, as my name was given at the Stamp-office.
Who pays Cooper?—Sometimes Mr. Arrowsmith, sometimes Mr. Weaver, and sometimes I pay him.
Then it appears that Weaver was hot to pay all expenses?—Not so.
How then?—Mr. Weaver is to be paid the balance when there is any; till then we keep it.
Who keeps it?—Mr. Arrowsmith and myself.
By Mr. Robert Smith.—If a loss should accrue on the paper, on whom would it fall?—On Mr. Weaver.
Are you quite sure of this?— Yes.
Was that the agreement?—It was.
Did Mr. Arrowsmith know of that making the agreement?—Yes.
Then you say that if the income were to exceed the expenditure, Weaver was to have it?—Yes.
And if the expenses were to exceed that income?—I dare say the paper would not go on.
By Sir J. Boughey.—When you made the proprietorship over to Mr. Weaver, did you conceive he had a right to drop tile paper or continue it as he might think fit?— I conceived that he might do as he pleased in that respect. I had nothing more to do with the paper; although I started it, and may be considered as the father of it.
By Lord Nugent.—I think I understood you to say, that some part of the outgoings of the paper were borne by you up to this time?— Out of Mr. Weaver's money.
Do you occasionally pay the journeymen and other persons who are employed? —For Mr. Weaver.
Does Mr. Weaver ever pay them himself?—Not always.
Has he ever paid them? — I think he has paid Mr. Cooper sometimes.
Do you happen to know how often he has paid Mr. Cooper?—Not exactly.
More than once or twice?—I think he has.
By Sir R. Fergusson.—Has Mr. Weaver been employed by you for any other purpose than in printing "John Bull?" — I do not employ Mr. Weaver in printing "John Bull."
Did you not employ Mr. Weaver to print "John Bull" while you were the proprietor?—Yes, while I was the proprietor.
Did you at that time employ him for any other purpose?—Yes, in my employment generally, as overseer.
Are any of the journeymen employed in printing "John Bull" employed by you in any other part of your business?— When there is such an influx of matter that Mr. Weaver requires assistance, we lend him some men.
When those men are lent to Mr. Weaver, does he pay any thing for their labour?— Of course. They are paid so much an hour.
Has Mr. Weaver ever paid any sum to you on account of those men?—They are among the several disbursements in the books, and the amount will be accounted for in the balance.
By Lord Nugent.—The question asked you is, whether, when you lend any extra men to Mr. Weaver, he pays you for the loan?—The money is not paid; but it is among the disbursements in the books.
By Sir W. De Crespigny.—In what capacity do you consider yourself as standing to Weaver, agent or trustee?—As his friend. I presume it is common for one man to take care of another man's money.
Were you in the habit of taking care of Weaver's money before "John Bull" was transferred to him?—He had then a certain salary; he has now three guineas a week for his present maintenance, and expects at the end of the year, or of the half year, the balance, if there is any, to be paid him of the profits.
640
You have not answered the question. Were you in the habit of taking care of Mr. Weaver's money before "John Bull" was transferred to him?—I presume he is capable of taking care of his own money.
The Speakersaid, the witness would do well with regard to the House, and would make a better impression with respect to himself, if he would deliberately attend to the questions put to him, and then give direct answers to those questions.
Mr. Shackle begged pardon if he had offended the House; but observed, that he was rather deaf, which sometimes prevented him from hearing the questions exactly.
Were you in the habit of taking care of Mr. Weaver's money before the "John Bull" was transferred to him?—No.
Have you given Weaver any security for the safe custody of his money?—None at all. I was never asked.
What are the journeymen employed in printing "John Bull" occupied about in the early part of every week?—They are occupied in what is called distributing, and preparing for the next publication.
On the motion of Mr. Bennet, Mr. Copper was then called to the bar, and examined.
By Mr. Bennet.—, Are you the editor of the Sunday paper called "John Bull?" —I am.
How long have you been so?—From its commencement.
Are you the sole editor?—I am.
Are all the manuscripts which are sent to the paper for insertion submitted to you?—They are all submitted to me.
[The clerk was here directed to place in Mr. Cooper's hands the "John Bull" of Sunday last, with the objectionable paragraph marked].
Was that article submitted to you before its insertion?—Part of it is an extract from "The Courier." The observations were written by myself. The House will, perhaps, allow me to add that I how understand the facts stated in that paragraph are not true. I am extremely sorry to have done any thing offensive to the hon. gentleman, and which is considered a violation of the privilege of the House. I believed, from general rumour, that the facts contained in those observations were true, or I would not have inserted them.
Whom did you talk to on the subject? —To nobody.

641
From whom did you receive the facts which you stated?—From general rumour.
What do you mean by general rumour? —I heard it mentioned in the office.
By whom?—I heard it mentioned by Mr. Shackle and Mr. Arrowsmith, as generally current.
Did you hear it from any one else?— No. Dining the whole, of Saturday I was in the office.
Then, on the general rumour mentioned to you by Mr. Shackle and Mr. Arrowsmith, you wrote the paragraph?—Exactly.
The paragraph is headed, "We have been requested to republish," &c. who requested you? No one.
Then that part of the paragraph is not true?—No; nor the latter part, as I how understand.
Are you in the habit of inserting paragraphs of this description on the authority of Mr. Shackle and Mr. Arrowsmith? —I am in the habit of receiving intelligence from various persons, and from them among the rest.
But you inserted this paragraph on their authority alone? — Yes, that the facts were correct.
Did they see the paragraph before it was printed?—No; the paper was gone to press before I saw them again.
Did they know the paragraph was inserted?—No, they did not.
Whom do you consider as the person in the office to whom you are to account for your conduct?—To account for my conduct!
Yes, who is your master?—Mr. Weaver.
Who employed you as the editor?— Mr. Shackle and Mr. Arrowsmith.
Have you any thing to do with the receipt and payment of money?—No.
Who pays you?—Mr. Shackle and Mr. Arrowsmith. I once received my salary from Mr. Weaver.
But you generally received it from Mr. Shackle and Mr. Arrowsmith?—Generally.
By Sir R. Fergusson.—Was the paragraph in question written in your own handwriting?—The greater part of it was.
Have you it in your possession?—I have not.
What has become of it? —The paragraphs and all the other articles are given by me to the compositors. What becomes of them I do not know. I believe they are destroyed.
Do you know if the paragraph in question is destroyed?—I believe it is.
642
In the office of the "John Bull" newspaper, are all the paragraphs of this nature destroyed after they are printed?—I know nothing of them after they are given out of my hands.
To whom do you deliver them? To the printer.
What is his name?—Blackey.
Did you hear the examination of Mr. Weaver yesterday?—No.
Where were you when the warrant was served at your house last night?—In the city. I was at Cornhill at half past eight, and went home afterwards.
Did Mr. Weaver communicate to you that he had appeared here?—No.
Did any person communicate it to you? —No person.
When did you know it?—I knew it yesterday.
At what time?—In the afternoon.
Did you see Mr. Weaver yesterday after his examination?—No.
Did you see him this morning?—Certainly.
You have stated, that if you had known the paragraph to be untrue, you would not have inserted it. How came you then to insert the first part of it? "We are requested to republish," &c. knowing it to be untrue?—It is a usual way to introduce a paragraph to say, "we are desired to say," or, "we are requested to say."
Have you told Mr. Arrowsmith or Mr. Shackle, that you intended to avow yourself the author of this paragraph?—Yes.
When?—To-day.
At what hour?—I cannot tell exactly.
Did they inquire of you who the author was?—They spoke of it in conversation, generally.
By Lord Nugent.—You have said that the latter part of the paragraph was in your hand-writing. In whose hand-writing was the former part?—It was an extract from the "Courier."
The whole of the remarks were in your hand-writing?—Yes.
In whose hand-writing was the extract from the "Courier?"—It was in print.
Then you occasionally send to the press of the "John Bull," printed copy from the "Courier?"—Yes.
By Mr. Macdonald.—Was any body present at the time you told Mr. Shackle and Mr. Arrowsmith that you intended to avow yourself the author of the paragraph?—Nobody.
Not Mr. Weaver?—No.

643
When there, is any doubt as to the safety of inserting a paragraph, to whom do you refer it?—The whole of the literary management of the paper is confided to me.
Do you mean to say that you consult with nobody on the propriety of inserting any paragraph that may appear hazardous?—With nobody.
Does Mr. Weaver continue to discharge the same duties with respect to the paper; as he did previously to the month of February?—Yes, he does.
By Lord Nugent.—Did you ever see Mr. Weaver at your own house?—No.
Did you ever receive any note, letter, or other written communication from Mr. Weaver, addressed to you at your own house?—None.
Did you ever tell Mr. Weaver where you lived?—Never.
By Dr. Phillimore.—Did Mr. Weaver know before his examination yesterday, that you wrote the paragraph in question? —I do not think he did.
When was it you first communicated with Mr. Weaver on the subject of the paragraph? Was it before his examination here?—I do not exactly recollect when it was.
The witness was ordered to withdraw.
Mr. Bennetsaid, they had now arrived at the close of the examination into a subject, the necessity for bringing which forward no one regretted more than himself; although he had felt that he could not, in the discharge of that duty which every man owed to his own character and to the House, abstain from doing so. The House had now had before it, the printer, proprietor, publisher, and editor of the paper; the latter of whom had avowed himself the author of the paragraph in question. He would say nothing of the falsehood displayed, of the perjury exhibited, of the shameful evidence given by these mere creatures of straw, in the disgraceful exhibition which the House had witnessed. Nor would he say any thing of the character of the paper with which they were connected. Its merits (if he might use the expression) were well known to the whole country; and there was but one opinion among honourable minds, namely, that it could receive its support only from persons of the basest, vilest, and most infamous nature. He repeated it, that let those persons be whom they might, they could be none but the basest and lowest of their species. It was those by whom such a publication
644
was patronised and supported who deserved the severest reprobation. It was not of those who took pleasure in such slander, and delighted in such circulation, that he spoke. That was unhappily but too general a taste. It was of those who gave to it their immediate assistance and support. The objects which he had had in view, in this investigation were, first, to clear his own character; next, if possible (although he hardly ventured to think that he should succeed in that object), to extract from the wretches who had appeared at the bar, who the persons were who employed them, and who furnished the funds for assailing the character of others. In that last object he had failed. He could not say that lie much regretted this; and, indeed, he would rather believe, if it were possible to believe, that those wretches were the authors of the libellous matter of that publication, than that it proceeded from any other quarter. He knew very well that by the rules and practice of the House, in breaches of privileges of this or of a much less serious nature, there was one course generally adopted, namely, at once to commit the offenders to Newgate. Since, however, he had had the honour of a seat in parliament, he had held and professed but one opinion on the subject of those summary judgments. That which he had stood up to oppose in other cases, he certainly would not maintain in his own. He knew well that real obstruction of the proceedings of the House was a breach of privilege which ought to be immediately punished; but he was by no means prepared to say the same of a constructive obstruction. Therefore, however he might differ from others who were perhaps better able to pronounce on the subject than himself, yet his heart, if not his judgment, told him, that there was only one course which he ought to pursue, namely, to give these people an opportunity of making the best of their case before a jury of their country. He would therefore move, "That Mr. Attorney-general be directed to prosecute Henry Fox Cooper, William Shackle, Thomas Arrowsmith, and Robert Thomas Weaver, for a false and scandalous libel on the Hon. Henry Grey Rennet, a member of this House, contained in a paper, intituled, 'John Bull,' dated Sunday, May 6, 1821."
The Marquis of Londonderryassured the hon. member, that no one regretted more than he did the breach of privilege

645
of which he had so justly complained. In the course of his observations he would shortly point out what he conceived the most proper course to follow, under all the circumstances of the case. His opinion was, that it would be expedient to wait another day, before they came to a decision upon this question. He felt convinced that the hon. member was the last man in the House who would give his assent to any vindictive or harsh proceeding; and, on the contrary, that he would be the first to concur in the course now proposed. The hon. member was certainly placed in a situation of much delicacy and difficulty. He had stated that, in pursuance of a theory of his own (which was repugnant to the forms of the House), he would move a prosecution by the attorney-general. Now, he did not mean to say that there were not cases in which such prosecutions were directed by the House; but he must maintain, that in this instance it was not the most proper way of vindicating the character and privileges of parliament, to send these persons before a jury loaded with the condemnation of such an assembly as that. The hon. member might certainly have moved a prosecution by the attorney-general when he first brought the subject before the House; but, was that the proper course, now that a person, after examination, had confessed himself to be the editor of the paper? There was no instance in which such a prosecution had been directed by the House, after having proceeded so far in the examination of the parties, and after those parties had disclosed that which would be a part of their case before a jury. He was not prepared to say how the House ought to dispose of this case, and therefore he proposed delay. He was sure the hon. member himself would regret that the House should hastily determine upon any thing harsh. He proposed, therefore, that the proceedings should be stopped till the House should be prepared to act when they took the redress of the grievance into their own hands. He would move, therefore, "That the debate be adjourned until to-morrow."
Mr. Wynnsaid, that unquestionably if it required time for further consideration to dispose of the motion, he would not dispute that the discussion ought to be adjourned. But he thought it due to the House to state, that he was prepared to meet the question for directing the attorney-general to prosecute with an imme-
646
diate negative. It would be unjust to the defendants and to the House to take that course. The offence was a misrepresentation of their proceedings. The publication misrepresented the speech of the hon. member. It represented that the hon. member had made an apology, not from conviction of error, but from fear of the consequence. The heaviest part of the offence could not come before a jury. Whether it was false or true, was a question which the jury could not enter into. It would be impossible for a jury to inquire into the truth of the representation. Members of that House could not go before a jury to prove what they said in that House. He could not consent, except upon the very strongest grounds, to depart from the usual practice of the House in such cases—the exercise of the privilege of commitment. He thought that, as an editor of a paper was now clearly brought before them, they ought to proceed against him instanter by a commitment for contempt; for no doubt could be entertained of their having, like every other court, a right to proceed in cases of contempt by prerogative. When the House had disposed of the editor, it would then become them to decide what measures they should adopt with regard to the other individuals who had been brought before it; and, indeed, when the gross prevarication of which they had been guilty was taken into consideration, he thought that the House ought to deliberate, whether that prevarication did not deserve their serious attention, and whether they ought not to commit them for it, rather than for the original breach of privilege with which they had been charged.
Mr. Bennetsaid, he might hold particular opinions, and differ from most of his friends upon this occasion; but he should be sorry to employ against these individuals those powers which he had denounced as improper when exercised against others. He had made his proposition under the idea that it was the most lenient measure which could be adopted towards the offending parties.
Mr. Broughamobserved, that as he considered the present question to be one of more than ordinary importance, he should make no apology for addressing a few short remarks to the attention of the House. With regard to the idea of leniency towards these parties, he laid it on-tirely aside, and left it to the House to

647
deal with them as it might think proper. To justice, however, they had a right; and so too had s the House for the protection of its privileges, which would be at an end for every and upon all questions, if it were to follow the advice of his hon. friend. He would riot say that there was no case in which it might not be more fitting for the House to proceed by prosecution at common law than by commitment; but this he would say, that if the present case was not one in which they were entitled to commit, there was no instance on record in which the right of commitment had been properly exercised. In his opinion, the present was as gross a breach of privilege as had ever been brought under the consideration of parliament: it was as palpable an obstruction to the free and unbiassed exercise of the privileges of each individual member of parliament, as could be conceived by the imagination of man: it stood upon all the grounds on which former breaches of privilege had been declared such by the highest of authorities in the best of times; and unless the House was determined to abandon every point on which their ancestors had insisted, he could not consent to negative their proceeding in the usual mode by commitment. Besides this observation, he had another which he wished to press upon their attention. It was impossible to deny that if they intended to proceed against the parties by prosecutions at common law, they ought to have been more abstinent in their questions, and to have stopped far short of that point to which they had now arrived in their examination. For what had they already done. They had, in the exercise of their high authority, called upon certain individuals under the terror of immediate punishment to criminate themselves, and to state in that House facts which elsewhere might be turned into evidence against them. He was not prepared to say that there might not b}e cases in which evidence given at their bar might be made use of as evidence elsewhere; but even allowing there were such cases, the present, he maintained, was riot one of them. For himself, he could not help observing, that he should conceive the House to be guilty of a gross abandonment of its privileges, if it committed, the further prosecution of this charge to the attorney-general. He was likewise opposed to the proposition made by the noble lord for the adjournment of this debate, unless it were made with a
648
view of giving further consideration to the evidence of the other persons who had been called to the bar. With respect to the person; who either was the author, or bad taken upon himself the authorship of the offensive paragraph, he could see no reason whatsoever for delay, as there could be no doubt of the line of conduct which the House ought to pursue regarding him: upon that point, therefore, he should certainly vote against the proposition of the noble lord.
Sir Francis Burdettsaid, that in the exercise of the power of commitment, which the House claimed as its undoubted right and privilege, he had on former occasions differed most widely in opinion from a large majority of it; and the more he considered the matter, the more was he convinced, that the House seldom interfered in questions of privilege without reducing itself to some awkward dilemma or another. He fully coincided in opinion with the noble marquis, that it was impossible for the House to agree to the institution of a prosecution by the attorney-general against these individuals, after having sifted and examined them in the most inquisitorial manner, by a process which, at the very best, was equivocal, and which would be most unjust and intolerable, if it were to send them for trial to a jury with a decision of that House against them, and with sufficient evidence taken from their own mouths to substantiate their guilt. This appeared to him to be an insuperable objection to the mode of proceeding proposed by the hon. member for Shrewsbury; but, in addition to this, he had another, which he would shortly submit to their consideration. The advocates of that mode of proceeding were not consistent with themselves in proposing to order the attorney-general to prosecute. The attorney-general, he begged leave to remind them, was not an officer under the orders of the House: he was an officer of the Crown; and, being such, should they wish him to prosecute, they ought to commence by proposing an address to his majesty—which he was of opinion they would think highly objectionable—that he would give directions to that officer to institute a certain prosecution in defence of the privileges of the* Commons of England. Besides, the distinction between privilege and power was this—that privilege was a shield of defence against power, and that power was a. weapon of attack upon the rights of others.

649
The best mode of supporting privilege was by opposing it to unjust power, and not by using it as an instrument of attack upon those who fell under the just displeasure of its possessors. Even in the times when it was most necessary to support the privileges of that House, he should have considered the mode of proceeding now proposed to be most objectionable. For, in the first place, he must confess that he did not perceive that any privilege of the House had been violated. The House possessed no privilege by which it could legally preclude the publication of such writings as were then before it. As far as he could see, no breach of privilege had taken place, unless it were a breach of privilege to make a false report of a speech delivered in that House. But, the paragraph in question was not a false report of what had occurred in the House, but of what had occurred out of it. Unless, therefore, it was a breach of privilege to censure the actions which a member of parliament might commit out of the House, he did not see in what manner they could interfere on the present occasion. If any breach of privilege had been committed, it was by the person, whoever he was, who thought it requisite, though that part of the story had been contradicted, and contradicted, as he believed, with the utmost truth—to call upon a member of parliament to account for expressions which he had felt it necessary to employ in his place in that House. It would be a most daring breach of privilege if a member was liable to be called upon by the relatives of men in official situations to account to them for the language which it might be their painful duty to use against such characters. If any individual thought that members were to act under that species of intimidation, it would be necessary to convince them to the contrary by the exertion of their privileges, and to defend themselves by them from such attacks, in the same manner as they defended themselves by them in former days from the intimidation of the Crown, which, fortunately for the country, had long ceased to have any existence. He fully agreed with the noble lord that the mode of proceeding now proposed was highly unjust, and added that he had no doubt that the hon. member for Shrewsbury would be disposed, by his innate sense of justice, not to press a proposition upon the House which was likely to be so detrimental in its future consequences.
Mr. M. A. Taylorthought that the evidence which had been given that day and the day before ought to be printed for such gross prevarication, and such wicked contempt of every thing like truth, ought not to be allowed to pass over with impunity. He should therefore move that the minutes of evidence should be printed.
Mr. Baringsuggested, that if the case were to go before a jury, it would be highly improper to print the minutes of evidence. If the House should be of opinion that no adjournment was necessary —and that was his own opinion—he did not think that any doubt could exist as to what it was requisite to do with the editor of the paper. After they had disposed of him, the House could adjourn the debate regarding the proceedings against the others. If the noble lord would withdraw his amendment, he should have no objection to propose that Henry Cooper be committed to Newgate.
Mr. Wodehousesubmitted to the House and to the hon. mover, whether the real character of the House was not likely to suffer by seeking to support its privileges against such mere men of straw as had just appeared at their bar. Malevolence and misrepresentation was the price which every member was obliged to pay for his seat in that House. He therefore entreated the House to consider whether the exercise of its privileges by commitment would not appear extremely questionable to the great majority of the people, when put in force against such creatures. For himself, he believed there was not a single provision in any of the six acts against which certain gentlemen opposite had declaimed so much, so odious to the nation as was the questionable power of committal for breaches of privilege.
Sir R. Wilsonsaid, that his hon friend was making an attempt to drag to light the miscreant, the base and dastardly assassin, who, under the protection of the press, had been waging a savage and unrelenting war against the weak, the defenceless, and the oppressed. Whatever might be the issue of the attempt, the gratitude of the House was due to him for having made it. As many members had withdrawn under the idea that an adjournment was to take place, he thought they had better not decide upon the important point of placing one of their fellow subjects in confinement, until they should be able to take the sense of a larger House.
Sir T. Lethbridgeconceived the paragraph complained of to be a gross breach of the privileges both of the House and of the people, and returned his sincere thanks to the hon. member for having brought it before the notice of the House. The paper which contained it had, for some time past, been dealing forth its malignity, in a manner which was disgraceful to the press, injurious to morality, and inconsistent with the existence of society. He had himself felt disagreeably situated from the misrepresentations of other prints, and had frequently been, on the point of bringing them under the notice of parliament. If he had abstained from so doing, it was from the sovereign contempt in which he held every thing that could fall from the editors of them. If an inquiry were to be proposed into the general state of the press, which had grown up into a fearful engine of mighty mischief, he should have no objection to support it. In saying this, he did not mean to deny that the press had also been productive of great practical benefit; and yet, unwilling as he was to trench upon its general liberty, he could not shut his eyes against the dangers which its licentiousness was calculated to create. With regard to the point, whether the debate should be adjourned till to-morrow, or finished that evening, he felt perfectly indifferent. If, however, the dignity of the House was to be considered, he thought it would be better to meet the question at once. Having had the parties before them, and heard their repeated prevarications, he thought the sooner they proceeded against the person who had avowed himself the author, the more they would consult their honour and true dignity.
The question of adjournment was then agreed to; and Henry Fox Cooper, William Shackle, Thomas Arrowsmith, and Robert Thomas Weaver were ordered to attend to-morrow.

SCOTS COUNTY REPRESENTATION.
Lord A. Hamiltonsaid, that when he had given notice of this motion, he had flattered himself that it would attract the attention of members; but he thought he should act unhandsomely in the present state of the House, by giving the appearance of solemn discussion where solemn discussion there was not; and he should do violence to his own feelings and to the interests of the, persons concerned, and act in a way
652
not creditable to the House, if he entered at length into the state of the representation of Scotland, in a House which it was rather his duty to count than to address. He could not hope, under existing circumstances, that he should be sufficiently supported in the division; and although he was not disposed to treat the House or the Speaker with the slightest disrespect, he felt it due to his constituents not then to go at length into the subject, and to do little more, than to move his resolutions. He could not act the farcical part of attempting to argue a question on which persons then, scattered about the town would be called, on afterwards to vote. He could not command the time of the House as he could his own, and there fore he could not then name another day for the discussion. The noble lord then stated, that it appeared by the certified copy of the freeholder's roll which had been laid on the table of the House, that the total number of voters for all the counties of Scotland, was 2,889. But it was well known that a great number of persons, especially those who held the paper superiorities, voted over and over again for different counties, so that the 2,889 would be reduced to not probably more than 2,000 real voters. On this simple ground, he called on the House to pledge itself to take the county representation of Scotland into its consideration in the next session, for the purpose of effecting some increase in the number of voters, and creating some necessary connexion between the right of voting and the landed property of Scotland. He had stated thus briefly the grounds of his resolutions, and he should now move,

1. "That it appears, by a certified copy of the roll of freeholders of every county in Scotland, as last made up, laid before this House in July 1820, that the total number of persons having a right to vote in all those counties together, did not exceed 2,889.

2. "That, by the same return, it appears that the greatest number of persons having a right to vote in any one county did not exceed 240, viz. for the county of Fife; and that the smallest number did not exceed 9, viz. for the county of Cromarty.

3. "That it further appears from the same return, that the same persons have a right to vote in several counties, and consequently that the total number, of voters for all the counties in Scotland is considerably less than 2,889.

653

4, "That it further appears to this House, that the right of voting for a Scotch county depends, not on the possession of the dominium utile of a real landed estate in that county, but oh holding the superiority over such estate, which superiority may be, and frequently is, disjoined from the property, insomuch, that of all the persons qualified to vote for a Scotch county, there may not be one who is possessed of a single acre of land within the country while the whole of the land may belong to, and be the property of persons who have not a single vote for the representative.

5 "That this House will, early in the next session of parliament, take into its most serious consideration, the state of representation of counties in Scotland, with a view to effect some extension of the number of votes, and to establish some connection between the right of voting and the landed property of that country."

The first resolution being put,
Mr. Mackenziesaid, that he could not consent to vote for any abstract proposition, or even for the matter of fact stated in the resolution just put from the Chair, knowing that it was to be followed by others intended to form the basis of practical measures. He complained that the noble lord had not at all stated his motives, and had given the House no arguments to enable it to arrive at any conclusions. He contended, that the alteration of system contemplated by the noble lord would hot materially augment the number of freeholders, and that it would be a direct violation of the Union, by one of the articles of which Scotland had stipulated, that she should have the unrestrained choice of her own representatives. A strong case, indeed, ought to be made out to warrant so flagrant a breach of public faith. He was certain that the noble lord was no friend of universal suffrage—that he had no sympathy or communion with its supporters; but the reform he contemplated was most important; and the least that might have been required was, that some opinion should have been expressed by those whom the change was intended to benefit. Hitherto, however, not a single meeting had been held; from which that opinion could be ascertained. He thought that the noble lord had treated the House somewhat contemptuously by the mode of proceeding he had adopted, and should
654
meet the resolution by moving the previous question.
The previous question was then put on the first four resolutions and negatived. On the last resolution, the House divided. Ayes 41; Noes, 57: Majority against the Resolution, 16.

List of the Minority.

Blake, sir Francis

Martin, J.

Bennet, hon. H. G.

Milton, lord

Boughton, R.

Newman, R.

Barham, J. F.

O'Grady, S.

Bury, lord

Orde, W.

Calcraft, J.

Palmer, F.

Crompton, S.

Parnell, Sir, H.

Crespigny, sir W. De

Phillips, G.

Dalrymple, sir H.

Pryse, Pryse

Ebrington, lord

Price, Rob.

Fergusson, sir R.

Ricardo, D.

Gordon, R.

Rumbold, E.

Grattan, Jas.

Rickford, W.

Guise, sir W.

Smyth, J.

Gaskel, B.

Tierney, rt. hon. G.

Griffith, J.

Tennyson, C.

Hume, Joseph

Taylor, M. A.

Langston, G.

Webb, col.

Mackintosh, sir J.

Whitbread, S.

Maberly, John

TELLERS.

Monck, J. B.

Hamilton, lord A.

Maxwell, J.

Abercromby, hon. J.

STEAM ENGINES BILL.
On the order of the day for the third reading of this bill,
Mr. M. A. Taylorsaid, that if the House would but consider the bill worthy of their consideration, they would afterwards find that it was calculated to do much good, without producing any mischief. He hoped that in the next session, he should be able to submit to a committee a plan for the reduction of smoke in every town in England. Mr. Parks, a gentleman of distinguished talents, had proposed an apparatus, which would be found of the utmost utility. He was sorry he did not see in his place the hon. member for Liverpool, that he might state to him a circumstance which had recently occurred in that town. An indictment was actually brought, in order to abate a nuisance occasioned by great bodies of smoke which were suffered to escape in a particular neighbourhood; the case was referred to the consideration of an eminent barrister, and that gentleman bad-recommended to the complaining-parties the use of Mr. Parks's apparatus. The apparatus was accordingly tried, and, after that trial, the parties who had so loudly complained, had come forward

655
and stated, that they were satisfied the nuisance had been abated.
The bill was read a third time, and passed.

BANK OF IRELAND BILL.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the order of the day for the second reading of this bill.
Mr. Maberlysaid, it he understood the bill correctly, if was to enable the company of the Bank of Ireland to increase their capital to a certain extent, and to allow a greater number of individuals to embark in any One private banking concern than; was now permitted in Ireland. The right hon. gentleman, as an equivalents for suffering the Bank to extend its capital was to borrow 500,000 l. until the year1838 at 4 per cent interest. This he had represented as a measure of economy to the country; but, so far from being economical, it was one that would create Considerable expense. For several years past, various sums of money had been negotiated with the Bank of Ireland although it was not the cheapest market for that purpose. In fact, at the Very time when the government were paying 5 per cent interest for money borrowed in Ireland, they were procuring sums from England, at the rate of 3 and 4 per cent per annum; so that the Bank of Ireland, instead of having done the public business for nothing, as had been alleged, was receiving a large bonus. Considering the demands the Bank of England had to pay, the sum received by the Bank of Ireland was much larger. The Bank of England received 270,000 l. for the payment of the dividends to the public; and he would be able to prove that, in five years, the Bank had received a bonus of 241,000 l. in consequence of the rate Of interest at which the right hon. gentleman had borrowed money from that body.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the present, as a mere pecuniary transaction, required no defence. It was borrowing 500,000 l. for 17 years, at 4 per cent. subject to all contingencies that might affect the money market. But the principal object he had in view was, to enable Ireland to carry on the banking system with greater advantages than she at present enjoyed,—an object which he thought it was worth attaining, even if some pecuniary loss were sustained.
Mr. Humesaid, that if the interest of money increased to 5 or 6 percent, the bargain would be advantageous; but, if it remained stationary, the country would be burdened with an unnecessary expense of one per cent.
Mr. S. Ricesaid, the subject ought not to be viewed as a matter simply of a pecuniary nature. It ought to be considered as an effort to call into action the natural advantages of Ireland. The measure, as far as it went, would, he was convinced, be one of unmixed benefit to that country.
The bill was read a second time.

GRAMPOUND DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
The Earl of Carnarvonrose to move the second reading of this bill. He was aware, he said, that many noble lords

627
objected to the particular provisions of the bill, whilst others were hostile to the whole principle, not only of this bill, but of all measures of a remedial nature, growing out of the evidence given at the bar of the House. He would not, however, enter at any length on the general part of the question, because, by having already passed three acts of parliament of a similar nature to the present bill, and having entertained every bill of the kind which had been presented to them, their lordships would seem to have recognized the principle, that when the House of Commons sent up any such bill as the present, they Would hear evidence, for the purpose of regulating their conduct thereby. It would only be necessary, therefore, for him to endeavour to convince their lordships, that the evidence which had been given on the present occasion was sufficient to justify the passing of the bill. Those noble lords who might vote for the second reading of the bill would only pledge themselves to this—that some change was necessary to be adopted in the manner of exercising the elective franchise in particular parts of the country, either according to the words or the spirit of the present bill. None of the evidence which had been given in support of the bill had been impaired by opposing evidence. At the end of the last session, wo bills for the disfranchisement of Grampound and Penryn had been sent up to their lordships from the other House; which bills, after all the evidence in support of them had been gone through at the bar, were prevented from being passed by the prorogation of parliament. The noble earl opposite, however, had given it to be understood, that if either of those bills should be sent up from the Commons during the present session, it should be considered to stand on the same footing as when formerly before their lordships. In consequence of this understanding, he had thought it unnecessary to go into the evidence at the same length as on the former occasion. He could state, however, that the evidence on which the Commons had passed this bill was the same as that on which the former bills were founded. The noble earl here proceeded to take a review of the evidence which had been given before the House of Commons, in order to show that it was sufficient to authorize the adoption of the bill. It appeared that fifty out of sixty-three, the whole number of voters, had been in-
628
fluenced in their votes by means of bribes given in the shape of loans, secured by notes of hand, which were cancelled at the end of the election. That the object of the notes was to bribe the voters could not be denied. It was also proved in evidence, that a person who had formerly been major of Grampound, had offered to procure a majority of votes upon receiving the sum of 7,000 l. He had stated these facts to show what had been the general practice of the borough. For this enormous evil the bill provided the most expedient remedy, by increasing the number of suffrages, and extending them to another species of voters. In legislating for the particular case of Gram-pound, it became their lordships to take a wider view of the question of transfer contained in the bill, and to consider, whether it did not afford a remedy for the evil, if the right of election were given to populous towns. It had been mistakenly said, that Cornwall possessed an undue share of the representation; but the fact was, that though Cornwall had hitherto returned a large number of members through these boroughs, the persons chosen were not connected with that county; they were, in reality more the representatives of Manchester and other great trading or manufacturing towns; but if the system of confining the representation to the hundred prevailed, the objection to the state of the representation of Cornwall would then be well founded; for in that case, when other boroughs in the same manner came under the animadversion of parliament, instead of the representation being distributed, as it ought, over the different classes of which the community was composed, the only result would be that of introducing thirty or forty more Cornish gentlemen into the House of Commons. He was not prepared to say that the existing balance of the constitution was the best that could possibly be constructed; but of this he was certain, that no better had ever been tried, or as yet suggested. To give security to a system, it was necessary that it should be pure; and he was therefore most desirous to remove all those blots and anomalies which disgraced the constitution. This, it was obvious, could only be done by timely and prudent reforms. Where, he would ask, was the point at which human institutions ought to stand, still? Since the beginning of the world every thing had been subject to change. No

629
proceeding took place in the legislature which did not, in some degree, alter the state of the constitution. Every inclosure bill their lordships passed had an effect on the existing state of society. The prerogatives of the Crown were daily altering. Was the state of the Crown or of the House of Commons the same as it was a century ago? If their lordships really wished to preserve the practicable identity of the constitution, they must be content to do it by renovation. When all was changing around us, why should one part of our institutions alone remain unchangeable? He was not one of those who wished to innovate on nothing but hopes; neither did he fear to touch the constitution, lest the whole should crumble into ruins. He wished to see direct representation extended to a few of our commercial towns, and those boroughs which had abused their elective franchise, made use of to give it to others.
The Lord Chancellorsaid he would not have risen to offer a word on the present occasion, had it not appeared that the noble earl considered the House pledged to entertain this bill. He therefore felt himself bound to state, that he reserved to himself the right of discussing the principle of the measure, and that he conceived that their lordships were not pledged to any thing by the examination of witnesses, or by any step which had yet been taken.
The Earl of Westmorlandobjected to the bill, both on account of the injustice of its principle, and because it tended to secure indemnity for future offences of the kind of that which it was intended to punish. For when persons who had acted honestly at an election, should find that for giving assistance in bringing the guilty to punishment, they were to be deprived of their own rights, they would no longer be disposed to yield that assistance, without which guilt could not be proved, and corruption might be carried on to any extent without a check. The principle of the measure was inconsistent with the British constitution, and in direct violation of Magna Charta. He contended that no corruption had been charged against thirty-two of the Grampound electors: that the innocent ought not to be punished for the guilty; and that the part of the bill which related to the disfranchisement of Grampound ought not to pass into a law.
The Earl of Liverpoolwished briefly to
630
state the grounds on which he should vote for the second reading of the bill. Whether his opinion were right or wrong, It was one which he had long entertained: for although in the second session in which he had sat in the other House he had opposed the general plan of reform brought forward, he had supported a bill for removing the elective franchise from Stock-bridge. He considered the right of election as a public trust, granted, riot for the benefit of the individual, but for the public good. He admitted, at the same time, that it was attended with great advantages to the individuals by whom it was enjoyed; and that was the reason why he could never vote, for the disfranchise of any place on grounds of expediency alone. But, if a case of abuse were proved, on the part of those whom it was intended to disfranchise, then he could have no hesitation in giving his vote. The elective franchise had no analogy to the right of property, though it had some to the rights of their lordships as peers; because they sat in that House, not for their own benefit, but for that of the public, and might be deprived of those rights if they were abused. The same principle might be applied to a borough. If it hall abused its trusts by gross corruption, parliament was authorised to deprive it of the exercise of its rights hereafter. The only difference was, that in one case the deprivation would apply to an individual alone, and in the case of the borough, to the whole; the act of a corporate body being for good or bad the act of the whole. If the question were, whether a case of abuse had been made out, on that ground, alone he should vote for the second reading of the bill; for, if ever a case of general and systematic corruption had been proved against any borough, it was against the borough of Grampound. He had opposed the bill for disfranchising Barnstaple, because he had not considered the case established to a sufficient extent to justify such a measure. But if ever corruption had been exposed, it was in the present instance.—The usual practice had hitherto been not to transfer the elective franchise, but to extend it to the hundred. In the cases in which that had been done, he had highly approved of the enactment; and if he should adopt a different course on this occasion, it should be only because he did not think that the same remedy would apply. The situation of Grampound made it impossible to

631
throw that borough open to the hundred without great inconvenience. It was well known that Cornwall abounded with boroughs; but, though there were more boroughs in Cornwall than in any other county, there were not more Cornish members in the House. To throw open those boroughs to the hundreds, would be to make that which was only an evil in theory, one in reality; for it would make the representation more local, and exclude persons from other parts of the country from a participation in it. At the same time, he had a great objection to one part of the remedy proposed. If the elective franchise were transferred to Leeds, the qualification would be arbitrary; for there was no fixed principle on which it could be formed. Some would go on the ground of property, whilst others would be for giving it to all householders, a system of which he had seen too much, not to have discovered the evils which resulted from it, and how liable it was to that very species of corruption which it was the intention of the present measure to punish and prevent. Neither could he approve of a very limited qualification, as it would give an obnoxious character to the bill. He thought it would therefore be better to have recourse at once to broad and fixed principles, which could be done by giving two additional members to the populous county of York. So many difficulties attended the transfer of the elective franchise to Leeds, that he did not see his way out of them; but if two members were added to the representation of Yorkshire, the House would then take and transfer the right of election as it found it, without the necessity of creating any fresh rules or qualifications. But, should their lordships object both to Leeds and to Yorkshire, there was another course which might be still more beneficial. Parliament might, after disfranchising Grampound, authorize his majesty, through the exercise of his prerogative, to order that two members should be returned for any place which he might think proper, or to revive an old borough. The last borough which had been created, that of Newark, had been created by the royal prerogative. This course would obviate most of the difficulties in which the subject was involved, at the same time that it would be perfectly consistent with ancient usage. When a corporation had forfeited its charter, there was nothing to prevent the Crown from reviving that charter, and
632
granting it to another body. The course to which he had alluded would be the same, and he conceived, more unobjectionable than that now proposed. Should it be decided that the prerogative of the Crown should be exercised, the first thing to be done, would be, to select some populous town, and to grant it a charter of corporation, as similar as circumstances would allow to those of our ancient corporate cities. He should only add, that he should feel it his duty, in the committee, to propose that the elective franchise be transferred to the county of York instead of the town of Leeds.
The Earl of Lauderdalemaintained that no case of general corruption had been established against the Grampound electors, for that out of fifty electors who had been accused, there were thirty-two against whom there had been no charge whatever. To punish the innocent for the acts of the guilty would be a most unjust and mischievous system of legislation.
The Marquis of Lansdownregarded the bill as calculated to command their lordships assent, from the importance of the principle of moderate reform which it involved, and which would tend to perpetuate the constitution, by investing it with the respect and confidence of the people. He was fully convinced, that if the law and constitution of the country recognised the representation of the people in parliament, through the means of corporate bodies, every individual belonging to those corporate bodies must be content to share their fate, and submit to the consequences of their general delinquency. With respect to what had fallen from the noble earl opposite, as to the expediency of leaving the Crown to select the place for which the members should be returned, he begged to protest most distinctly against being involved in any assent to such a proposition. Whether such a course would be conformable or not with ancient usage, he had no hesitation in saying, that since the Union with Scotland and Ireland, it would be a complete innovation upon all that made up the modern practice of the constitution. Though he should prefer granting the right of election to Leeds; yet, should he find the sense of the House against that provision, he would not oppose the transfer proposed by the noble earl opposite, to the county of York.
The Earl of Liverpoolnever meant that the Crown should have the right of

633
creating new boroughs. What he proposed was, that after the disfranchisement of a borough took place, it should be the power of the Crown to declare to what unrepresented town or borough the right of election should be transferred.
The bill was then read a second time.