classes. An hon. friend had 'suggested that he ought to explain what that classing meant. It only implied, that persons formed themselves into parties of twenty, who chose a leader to read a newspaper to them, purchased in common. He could not allow the fact of classification to be any evidence against these persons; he believed in his heart it was done for no 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. gentle man should have so indifferent an opinion of these reformers as not to trust them even in his coal-mines. Mr. Lambton rose, with considerable warmth, to repel the conjunction of his name with radical reformers. He had often been attacked for his opposition to their principles, and it was too much for gentlemen who had never ventured to meet them face to face, to taunt him in this way with a sympathy in their doctrines. 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 principles, 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. Monday, December 13. 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 his attendance. The author was a particular friend of his, and his name was John Cam Hobhouse. he intended to move, to add to the bill. Mr. Ellice immediately rose, and said, In criminal cases, at the suit of a private that in order to save the time of the prosecutor, the term allowed to the latter House, and that no unmerited punishment was twelve months, and if he did not might fall upon the publisher of the bring the case on to trial within that pe- pamphlet in question, he had been inriod, the defendant might carry down the structed by its author to avow his record by proviso, and tender himself for name, and to add, that he would readily trial; he had thought it right to apply the obey any order of the House requiring 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. Courtenay 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. 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. Hob house. 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. Hob, house, 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 exist ence 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 land part 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 estab the 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 take the punishment into its own hands, by ordering the commitment of the for contempt; and, therefore, if a libel be written against the House of Commons, the author ought more properly to be punished by the House; and it is by no means advisable to send it to such a mode of trial as has been alluded to." Mr. Fox was quite clear that the offence resembled contempts of court; and that, as such, it ought to be punished by the House. It was impossible that the case on which the above opinion was given, or, indeed, any that could be pointed out in the history of parliament could be so strong as that which was under consideration: it was not a constructive, but an actual contempt of the House; and no doubt, he believed, would be entertained of the absolute necessity of committing the offender. As to libels attacking the government of the country, and incidentally touching either branch of the legislature, he could make great allowance for the irritated feelings of distressed mechanics suffering under temporary pressure; he could make great allowance for the editor of a daily paper, who in the hurry of business had allowed a paragraph to appear to which, in his cooler moments he would be loth to give publicity; but he could hardly make any allowance for the deliberate act of an individual, who had ventured to give currency and general circulation to sentiments like those contained in the pamphlet now before the House, and who could scarcely, without the greatest remorse, he should suppose, have contemplated the consequences that might have followed the incitement he had thus given to the ignorant. [Hear.] He did not wish to press the case at all beyond what the House might fairly think it would bear; for his object only was to carry into effect the general feeling of those who heard him. If the majority of honourable members differed from him, which he did not believe, as to the course of punishment he ought to suggest, he would willingly acquiesce in any amendment. He had stated his own view of the question, as he conceived his duty required, and he should conclude, in order to lay a foundation for future proceedings, by calling upon the House to pass a resolution, expressive of the character which, in his opinion, belonged to the publication he had brought before it. He then moved "that the said pamphlet is a scandalous libel, containing matter calculated to inflame the people into acts of violence against the legislature, and against this House in particular; and that it is a high contempt of the privileges and constitutional authority of the House." The question was then put upon the resolution, and it was carried, the voice of Sir F. Burdett only being heard in the negative. Mr. Courtenay also moved, "That John Cam Hobhouse, esq., having acknowledged himself to be the author of the said pamphlet, has been guilty of an high contempt of the privileges and of the constitutional authority of the House."This resolution was carried as the former, sir F. Burdett persisting in his dissent. Mr. Courtenay then observed, that some particular circumstances had been stated to him, that made it desirable at the present moment not to decide upon the ultimate place of punishment, whether it should or should not be Newgate. He apprehended that the proper motion would now be, that Mr. Hobhouse be committed to the custody of the serjeant-at-arms, and it could subsequently be determined whether it would be fit to send him to Newgate or elsewhere. Mr. Brougham said, that before the question was put, he wished to be inform ed of the necessity under the circumstances for the previous and intermediate punishment. The hon. gentleman was no doubt aware of the consequences of such a proceeding, namely, that the individual must be brought to the bar, besides being exposed to the inconvenience of having heavy fees to pay. At any rate, the circumstances mentioned by his hon. friend (Mr. Ellice) would be enough to warrant the House in sending Mr. Hobhouse to Newgate to-morrow, or to whatever other place of confinement the House might think expedient. It had been stated by the hon. member for Coventry, that the individual in question had left town to perform an office of filial piety—to visit his father, who who was in a dangerous state of health, as it was of consequence that he should see him before he submitted to the punishment the House might determine to inflict. He did not mean to say any thing against the mode of proceeding recommended; on the contrary, it was the only way in which the House could properly proceed on a question of this kind [Hear, hear!]. For one, he should always protest against that anomalous process of sending a question of parliamentary privilege to be tried by any other court than itself [Hear, hear !]. He was decidedly in favour of the more immediate and direct course; and however grave the offence might be, the House he was sure would not inflict a double punishment, or at tempt to deprive the person accused of the means of visiting and conferring with his father. that it would be almost impossible for Mr. Hobhouse to be received in Newgate, unless he were to be put into the same room with a convicted felon. The House would, therefore, see his reason for wish should be placed in the charge of the serjeant-at-arms. He did not suppose that on this account he would be exposed to any additional punishment, by fine or fees; and it was at his instance that the hon. member had moved for the intermediate commitment which would require the attendance of Mr. Hobhouse to-morrow. If blame was imputable to any body, he must certainly remove it from the shoulders of the hon. member who had made the motion. Mr. Courtenay immediately rose and stated, that he had never been more surprised than by what he had just heard.-ing that in the first instance Mr. Hobhouse Unquestionably he had been prepared to make the ordinary and regular motion for the commitment of Mr. Hobhouse to Newgate; but an hon. friend of his and of Mr. Hobhouse (Mr. Ellice), had previously stated some circumstances which made him particularly wish that the previous and intermediate course, now reprobated, should be pursued for the convenience of the offender. In return for this anxiety to accommodate, he had been treated with the tirade just delivered, imputing to him an intention to aggravate the punishment: he was convinced that the House would acquit him of any such purpose [Hear!]. He was now left, therefore, without any alternative; he must make his first motion for commitment to Newgate; though if any amendment were offered for changing the place of confinement, he should be happy to acquiesce on the statement of sufficient grounds. He then moved, "That John Cam Hobhouse, esq., be for his said offence, committed to his majesty's gaol of Newgate." Mr. Brougham added, in explanation, that he found it difficult to conceive how any other man but the hon. member opposite, and the hon. gentleman who had made the suggestion, could think that it would be Mr. Hobhouse's wish to be taken into custody forthwith, that he might thus be exposed to two sorts of punishment. He was not to be blamed for supposing that it must be the wish of the party accused that the ordinary course should be adopted, though if Mr. Hobhouse really was desirous of being taken into the custody of the sergeant-at-arms, he could have no possible objection. Mr. Ellice observed, that before he came down to the House he had seen Mr. Hobhouse, who was anxious to make a frank avowal that he was the author of the pamphlet, both to save the time of the House and to prevent the punishment of any other person but himself. Knowing pretty accurately what the consequences of such an acknowledgment would be, he had felt it his duty, feeling a very warm friendship for Mr. Hobhouse, to inquire into the state of the place where it was most likely it would be ordered that the offender should be confined, and he found Mr. Wynn could not help thinking that some difficulty might arise in point of regularity of proceeding; he did not see how the motion, that Mr. Hobhouse be sent to Newgate in the first instance, could be executed without a commitment to the custody of the sergeant-at-arms.— The only persons who could take him were the serjeant-at-arms or his deputy, who were the officers of the House. There were, undoubtedly, cases where the order of commitment to the serjeant-at-arms was not preceded by an order of commitment to Newgate, but then the party had been summoned to appear at the bar, and was actually in the possession of the House. Unless a previous motion for commitment to the serjeant were made, he did not see how Mr. Hobhouse was to get to Newgate, unless, which was not to be expected, he should voluntarily go to the keeper of the prison, requiring to be put into a place of security. He therefore thought that the original motion was the proper one; but he did not on that ground apprehend that the necessary consequence would be that he should be brought to the bar. The course would be that at the next, or the next sitting but one, the serjeant at arms should report that he had taken Mr. Hobhouse into cus tody, and then would follow an order for his commitment to Newgate. Of this, repeated instances might be pointed out; but one of the most recent was that of general Clavering, who had been guilty of prevarication, and the serjeant was directed to take him into custody. The serjeant reported that he had obeyed the order, and a vote was passed immediately that he should be committed to Newgate. The Speaker thought it necessary to say a few words in point of form. In many H |