against the House. He should not follow the hon. baronet through all that reasoning which consisted in a denial of their privileges, and the reiteration of an argument which the hon. baronet had already carried into the courts below, and subsequently into the other House of parliament. The House of Lords had confirmed those privileges though he did not mean to admit that they had not before stood on ground sufficiently firm. With regard to the relation of this passage to the context, he must say, that having read the pamphlet, he thought the farther that context was examined, the more necessary would it appear that the dignity of the House and the authority of the law should be vindicated in this instance. He would now merely read part of the concluding passage, which seemed to him to contain an open incitement to violence and to a resistance of the law. The hon. member then read the following extract from page 52:-" My determination, for one, is fixed: if those who have the power attempt to deprive me of the inalienable right of meeting my fellow countrymen, by letting loose a soldier at me, without the warning of an act of parliament, I will resist him if I can; if they do give me the warning of an act of parliament, I will break it if I can. I consider the object exactly the same, the injustice equally calling for resistance; the mere additional ceremony is not worth the statute-paper; the time, the means, the occasion, must of course make part of the prudential question, which every man must determine for himself, and concerning which I do not wish to be his prompter." Could any man of common sense doubt the import and meaning of this passage? He must confess he could not concur with the argument in favour of a prosecution. Upon this subject he adhered to the principle maintained both by Mr. Fox and Mr. Burke, whom he regarded as the greatest authorities on all points of constitutional law-that the House lowered its tone, and weakened its authority, whenever it sought assistance from other courts. As to the objection, of the House acting both as accuser and judge, what was there strange in that? Was not every court invested with an authority to issue process, and if not obeyed, to treat it as a contempt? Had they not power to compel a party in such a case to answer interrogatories? and was a power exercised by all the minor courts in the kingdom to be denied to the supreme court of parliament? He knew that some persons thought it better to let such offences pass unnoticed; but, for his own part, he doubted the policy of thus manifesting their contempt. If the courts of law were charged with injustice and partiality, or if the judges were openly accused of acting with no other motive than that of currying favour with the court, would not the libellers be punished? Could their functions be discharged, or their authority maintained, if such attacks were suffered to be made with impunity? Why, then, should the privileges of that House, which were held on behalf of the people, be alone subjected to insult and invasion? The House must recollect the many errors and atrocities to which a breach of their pri vileges had led. How often had parliament been misled by giving way to an influence out of doors. The attainder of lord Strafford was procured by means of placards distributed about the streets. He agreed that they ought now to put out of view the individual reputed to be the author. But his supposed rank and situation might become important matters to be considered. The offence had, it was clear, not been committed unadvisedly, and the circumstances to which he had just referred constituted a strong ground for separating this from the great majority of such cases. Lord Nugent observed, that he had been misconceived by his hon. relation who had just sat down. What he had said was, that he did not think it always expedient to pursue the same course, and that there might be cases in which the House might act incautiously in trusting to the Crown for directing a prosecution. The question was then put, and the original resolution being carried, Robert Stodart was ordered to be in attendance on Monday next. SEIZURE OF ARMS BILL.] Lord Castlereagh having moved the order of the day for the second reading of this bill, Mr. Tierney said, he had no intention whatever to provoke a debate in the present stage of the measure. His objection was not so much to the principle of the bill, which was local and temporary, as to certain provisions of it. Therefore he thought it most advisable to let it pass the second reading and go into the committee, where perhaps the amendments might be adopted, which he thought requisite. If out some commanding military force, there was an end to all security-that arms were provided, and the landed pro not, there were two subsequent stages at which it might be opposed. A clause to which he most strongly objected was one empowering one justice, on any informa-perty already parcelled out [a laugh]. tion, to grant his warrant for entering into the House of any man by night. Mr. Bennet hoped the whole of the county of Northumberland would not be put under the operation of the bill. All its purposes would be answered by making it act on certain parts thereof. Mr. Lambton hoped the noble lord would feel it his duty to state to the House whether he had made the inquiry he promised, in consequence of what had passed in the House last night. He now again asked the noble lord whether he had seen any communication from the deputylieutenant of the county of Durham to any of his colleagues, containing a representation at the end of the peaceable state of the county? Lord Castlereagh said, he had read the communication referred to by the hon. member. But the evidence it afforded did not go the length that the hon. member seemed to imagine. It merely stated that the county was not in a state of tumult at that time, without venturing to assert that tranquillity would be permanent. Now, it had never been alleged, that the county was in a state of actual tumult, but only in such a state as might lead to tumult. The letter was written to lord Sidmouth, in consequence of an application to certain magistrates to call out the yeomanry, by the commanding officer at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, he considering an additional military force necessary for the security of the county. The letter conveyed intelligence of this application, and added what he had before mentioned, as the opinion of the writer. The South Tyne corps had in fact been put on duty in consequence of the commanding officer's wish. This was the only document he had seen. Mr. Wharton declared that his information was of the most alarming kind. A system of communication had been established throughout extensive districts in Durham and Yorkshire, and the spirit of disaffection was on the point of exhibiting itself in armed force. The colliers and pit-men were thoroughly organized, and assembled every day in parties of twenty, their leaders assembling every week. A letter which he had received from a gentleman in that part of the country, and one not easily alarmed, stated, that with An hon. member opposite might be more interested than he was aware of, and if he knew the source of this information as well as he did, would come to the same judgment. At many of these meetings reform was, indeed, the professed object, but not any reform of that House, even upon the wild scheme of universal suffrage. The reform contemplated, and for which they seemed to entertain an enthusiastic desire, was a transfer of property from those who now enjoyed it to those who did not. Mr. Lambton said, that were it not for the disagreeable nature of the subject, he should have been extremely amused at some of the observations of the hon. gentleman, but the subject was too serious for mirth. Yet he thought it a little extraordinary that a gentleman who had not been for some years in the county of Durham, and who, when he did reside there, lived some miles distant from the people against whom he had preferred such heavy charges, should come down to the House and make assertions concerning persons exactly opposite to what he (Mr. L.) had stated, who lived amongst them, and had caused the most diligent inquiry to be made into their conduct. He then described the contents of a letter he had received from a person who had a few days before been present at a meeting of owners of coal-mines, where the fact of the colliers having arms happened to be discussed, but not one among them could affirm the fact of his own knowledge. He stated, however, that the colliers had been pretty generally classed, but that that practice was very much abating, and that it had prevailed among the colliers only, and not among the smiths, or any other description of workmen. He never recollected any year in which the men were more anxious to work he did not remember one idle day among them, but that of the meeting at Newcastle. He had also seen a gentleman from one of the villages to which he had before alluded, who represented every thing there as perfectly quiet. This intelligence had been confirmed by another gentleman from that county, with whom he had recently had a conversation. He had informed him, that many of the persons classed as radicals had left the classes. An hon. friend had 'suggested Mr. Lambton rose, with considerable that he ought to explain what that class-warmth, to repel the conjunction of his ing meant. It only implied, that persons name with radical reformers. He had formed themselves into parties of twenty, often been attacked for his opposition to who chose a leader to read a newspaper their principles, and it was too much for to them, purchased in common. He gentlemen who had never ventured to could not allow the fact of classification to meet them face to face, to taunt him in be any evidence against these persons; he this way with a sympathy in their doc believed in his heart it was done for no trines. other purpose but that of reform, and not to pass Agrarian laws; and that they were as quiet and peaceably disposed as any description of his majesty's subjects. Accordingly, he still adhered to his in tention of proposing in the committee, that the county of Durham should not be within the operation of the act. He assured the noble lord, that in making these inquiries, he had been actuated solely by a desire of dissipating what he conceived a false alarm. Lord Milton said, he believed there was no connexion whatever between the colliers in Northumberland and those in Durham. He lamented extremely, that a bill like the present should be proposed to be continued for two or three years, when it was in fact totally uncalled for by the state of the country. Mr. H. Clive mentioned a report from the mayor of Newcastle, which was in the Secretary of state's office for home affairs. It contained the depositions of four respectable individuals, on the subject of the meeting near that place on the 12th October. The hon. gentleman read the substance of three of these depositions. The first stated, that the deponent had no doubt but that the parties marching to the meeting were secretly armed; the second, that the radicals were armed with pikes; and the third, that the deponent believed that upwards of 1,000 had arms in their pockets. Lord Castlereagh rose merely to mention a matter to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lambton), not that the statements of the hon. gentleman would, even if accurate, alter his view of the expediency of the extended measure; but he wished the hon. gentleman to inquire into the truth of the fact which had been stated to him last night, namely, that the agent of the hon. gentleman had discharged from his mines the leaders of these classes. If this was the case, it was curious that so excellent a reformer as the hon. gentleman should have so indifferent an opinion of these reformers as not to trust them even in his coal-mines. Lord Castlereagh, with much good temper, assured the hon. gentleman that he called him an excellent reformer in a constitutional sense, and never meant to class him with the radicals. He knew he was not a radical, for he had read the hon. gentleman's speech, delivered at the Newcastle meeting, with all that open manliness which marked his conduct in every other respect. He only thought the hon. gentleman was more disposed to place confidence in those persons than he should be, and mentioned the subject entirely that the hon. gentleman, if not acquainted with it, should ascertain whether his agent had thought so ill of the leading reformers as to dismiss them from his service. Mr. Lambton said, the noble lord having, with that conciliating manner which no one knew better how to display, disclaimed the intention of imputing those violent principles to him, he of course could not for a moment retain the idea that any thing personal was meant. If his agent had dismissed these men, he was not implicated; and, to be good for any thing, it must be shown that they were discharged on account of their political prin ciples, and for no other cause. Sir C. Monck said, he hoped the noble lord, when the bill was considered in the committee, would consent to limit the operation of the bill to three wards in the county of Northumberland, they being the only parts of that county where symptoms of disturbance had manifested themselves. The bill was then read a second time. HOUSE OF LORDS. MISDEMEANORS BILL.] The Lord Chancellor having moved the order of the day, the bill for preventing delay in the administration of justice in cases of Misdemeanor was read a third time. His lordship then observed, with reference to what had been said on the subject of informations exofficio, that he had framed a clause which he intended to move, to add to the bill. In criminal cases, at the suit of a private prosecutor, the term allowed to the latter was twelve months, and if he did not bring the case on to trial within that period, the defendant might carry down the record by proviso, and tender himself for trial; he had thought it right to apply the same rule as to time, to informations exofficio filed by the attorney general, and to informations and indictments in which the attorney-general was the prosecutor; and he proposed to enact, that in every case of such prosecution, where the defendant had pleaded not guilty, and the attorney general did not, within a year, bring on the case for trial, the defendant might give a notice of twenty days to the attorney-general of his intention to apply to the court either to order a trial, or to set aside the prosecution, Either the Court could then make an order, or the period of the notice would give the attorney-general an opportunity of entering a noli prosequi. Lord Holland hoped the House would excuse him if he should rise to make his personal acknowledgments to the noble and learned lord, for the clause which he had submitted to their consideration. The clause went as far as any thing which he could suggest, and carried its object into effect in a much better manner. He could not say that the clause had indeed done all which he could have desired, but it did much more than he had ever expected. This and another clause which the noble and learned lord had introduced, had effected an improvement so material in the bill, that he did not deny that the measure would operate a very considerable improvement in the law of the country. He therefore should for one say, "content" to the motion for passing the bill. The clause was then read, and the bill passed. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Monday, December 13. BREACH OF PRIVILEGE-COMPLAINT AGAINST A PAMPHLET INTITULED " A TRIFLING MISTAKE," &c.] Mr. Courte nay having moved the order of the day, the House proceeded to take into consideration the complaint, which upon Friday, was made to the House of a printed pamphlet, intituled, A "Trifling Mistake in Lord Erskine's recent Preface." (VOL. XLI.) Mr. Ellice immediately rose, and said, that in order to save the time of the House, and that no unmerited punishment might fall upon the publisher of the pamphlet in question, he had been instructed by its author to avow his name, and to add, that he would readily obey any order of the House requiring his attendance. The author was a particular friend of his, and his name was John Cam Hobhouse. Mr. Courtenay did not wish to give unnecessary trouble, but he apprehended that what had already occurred on a former day would impose upon the House the necessity of having the publisher brought to the bar: an order had been made for the attendance of Robert Stodart, and he felt it right, therefore, to move that he be examined, although unquestionably what had fallen from the hon. gentleman, afforded the House sufficient knowledge of the author of the libel, The order of the day was then read, and the Speaker inquired whether Robert Stodart was in attendance. The Serjeant at Arms reported in the affirmative, and it was ordered that he should be called in. He was put to the bar accordingly, and interrogated by the Speaker. What is your name?-Robert Stodart. Look at that pamphlet, and state whether it was published by you?—It was. Do you know the author?—I do. State at length the names of Mr. Hobhouse; his christian as well as surname.-John Cam Hobhouse.-The witness was then ordered to withdraw. Mr. Courtenay observed, that after what had passed, it was undoubtedly not consistent with his view of the case to visit the printer or publisher of the libel with any punishment. It was'the duty of the House to take notice of such a publication, and the gentleman who was the author of it had avowed himself. He would move, therefore, in the first instance, that Robert Stodart (be discharged, and next, that Mr. John Cam Hobhouse be ordered to attend. Mr. Ellice said, that Mr. Hobhouse was not in town at the present moment; he was in the country with his father, who was ill, but he would readily attend if an order were made out for that purpose: he would be able to attend tomorrow, Mr. Courtenay was desirous that every (3 T) reasonable accommodation should be afforded to the individual: he had been made acquainted with the domestic call made upon Mr. Hobhouse, and it would be sufficient if he could attend tomorrow. He moved accordingly to that efect. Mr. Tierney wished the hon. member just to state the purpose he had in view in requiring the attendance of Mr. Hobhouse. The Speaker apprehended that the hon. mover was mistaken in the situation in which the publisher was placed: Robert Stodart was not in custody, as he had only been ordered to attend the House to-day. As to the necessity of the attendance of Mr. Hobhouse himself, if it had depended merely upon the information of the publisher, it would be fit, according to all the precedents, that Mr. Hobhouse himself should be called before the House, that he might, if he were able, disprove the assertion, and show that he was not the author of the libel. Here, however, a declaration had been made through an hon. member by Mr. Hobhouse, admitting that he was the author, and it seemed therefore unnecessary that he should be called upon to attend at the bar. Such was the ordinary course of proceeding; but, in the particular case, the House would judge for itself. offender. He would not waste the time of the House by arguing upon the existence of the right of commitment, which all honourable members, with a single exception, admitted [Hear.] He would, however, for his own satisfaction, and perhaps for the satisfaction of the House, or of those members who had not given the subject the same degree of attention that he had bestowed upon it, read a single passage from the report of a committee appointed to examine the question, and the result of whose labours was most conclusive: the report was terminated as follows:-" This power is in truth part of the fundamental law of parliament: the law of parliament is the law of the landpart of the lex terræ mentioned in Magna Charta, where it is declared that no freeman shall be taken or imprisoned but by the judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land, and is as much within the meaning of those words, the law of the land, as the universally acknowledged power of commitment for contempt by courts of justice in Westminster-hall, which courts have a summary power of punishing the offender. Your committee are, therefore, of opinion, that this power is founded on the clearest principles of right, is proved by immemorial usage, and is recognized and sanctioned by the highest legal authorities; that it grew up Mr. Courtenay thanked the chair for with our constitution; that it is estabthe information supplied. As it now ap- lished and confirmed as clearly and inpeared, from the highest authority, that controvertibly as any part of the law of after an avowal of the author, such as had the land, and is one of the most important been made, it was not necessary that the safe-guards of the rights and liberties of House should order his attendance; the the people." This decision of the comcourse he had to pursue was extremely mittee had been confirmed by the opiplain and simple. He would, therefore, nions of individuals entitled to the utmost advert very shortly to the nature of the weight, and who were some of the firmest offence that had been committed, and to the friends of the liberty of the press, and of manner in which he conceived it ought to the constitutional rights of the people. be visited. He hoped the view he had He would not fatigue the House by going taken of the subject would meet with the through them, but he would just advert to general feeling and concurrence of the the manner in which Mr. Fox had exHouse. He had no difficulty in stating, pressed himself on this subject: he had that it had been a matter of very anxious said that it never could be intended that consideration with him how to make up. an offender should escape with impunity; his mind as to the particular mode in and with regard to ordering a prosecution which the House ought to punish an to be commenced by the attorney-general, offence of this kind. He could assure his words were" It does not appear to the House, that he had consulted with his me that this is the just mode of proceeding hon. friend opposite (Mr. Wynn), and in cases of this nature: courts of justice after the fullest inquiry, he was persuaded, have never, or at least very seldom, adoptthat the question would not be met pro-ed the practice of ordering prosecutions perly if the House did not proceed to for contempt; and, therefore, if a libel be take the punishment into its own hands, written against the House of Commons, by ordering the commitment of the the author ought more properly to be |