cation which the witness at the bar had shown, would, he was persuaded, induce the House to select that sort of punishment which would convey the least feeling of disgrace. As to attacks upon himself from any part of the public press, he should ever treat them with indifferencein such a case as that which was represented (for he had not seen it) to have so calumniously reflected upon him with contempt. He also felt himself bound to

the circumstances of extenuation into consideration, he hoped the House would abstain from committing this person, but rest satisfied with reprimanding him; more especially as, in this case, they had already heard all the palliatory circumstances. If, however, this more lenient course was not the general sense of the House, so clearly was he of opinion that they ought to be unanimous in dealing with questions of privilege; so well convinced was he that they ought to adopt a course likely to pre-express his opinion in favour of the geneserve their privileges, and to visit severely any invasion on the part of the reporters, of their great and constitutional privileges, that he would be the last man in the House to divide it upon the motion of the hon. gentleman. If the committal of this individual was finally resolved on, as it appeared to be, he should recommend the House to rest satisfied with committing him to the custody of the serjeant at arms instead of to Newgate, and with making the term as short as possible.

Mr. Bankes was afraid there was no precedent in a case of this kind, of a committal to the serjeant at arms instead of to Newgate. In this case, he had no wish to press an unusual severity of punishment; he was anxious only that they should assert their own privileges, and administer justice tempered with mercy.

Mr. J. H. Smith said, there was a precedent in 1805, when Mr. Peter Stuart, of "The Oracle" newspaper, was, for a libel, committed to the custody of the serjeant at arms. He recommended that a similar course should be adopted on the present occasion. He thought that the matter urged in extenuation entitled the individual to all the lenity they could consistently afford.

Mr. Wynn said, that the old place of committal was to the Gate-house, but in later times it was to Newgate; and in selecting that prison, perhaps they would be consulting the convenience of the individual, and avoiding for him the expense which being in the custody of the serjeant at arms would induce. He had no objection to frame his motion either way.

Sir J. Mackintosh entirely concurred in the terms which had been applied to this libel, but from the statement made by the reporter at the bar, he was fully convinced the error (great as it was) was unintentional. He fully acquitted the individual of wilful intention, and feeling this, he could not but vote for the lighter punishment. The appearance of talent and edu

rally improved character of the public press, for whatever political bias particular newspapers might have and might exercise respecting the several parties to which they were attached, he never recollected a period in which their columns exhibited more general decorum, more general ability, more exemplary abstinence from attacks upon private life, and from those disgraceful invasions of the privacy of domestic character which were once so much indulged in. This great and valuable improvement in the public press, had arisen from the superior talents, judg. ment, and character of the proprietors, and the improved advantages and better condition, in every respect, of the gentlemen employed under them. On this account alone, even exclusive of the demeanour of the gentleman whom they had just heard at their bar, he should strongly urge the propriety of abstaining from any degrading punishment the effect of which must be to have a tendency to take away that sense of self respect and independent character which it was so essential to cherish in persons of that description.

Mr. W. Smith said, he knew the young gentleman personally, and could assure the House that he was a person of respectable connexions, of good education, and of excellent behaviour. There could, therefore, be no doubt that he would prefer the punishment of being taken into the custody of the serjeant-at arms to the degradation of being committed to Newgate.

Mr. Williams thought himself bound to state, that on the evening of the debate he had sat behind the hon. member (Mr. Hume), and had a distinct recollection of the following expression:-" The right hon. gentleman, and the hon. gentlemen around him, may smile." Soon after this there certainly were several cheers, although, no doubt, a few sentences intervened, which were lost in the gallery.

Mr. Bennet hoped the hon. gentleman

would make it a motion for commitment | attention to their interests by sir T. Maitto the custody of the serjeant-at-arms, land, who had always conducted himself because he was convinced that to be com- with distinguished ability and humanity. mitted to Newgate would, by a person of education and refined feelings, be felt as the greatest degradation. While on the subject of misrepresentations in the public prints, he had to state, that he then held in his hand a paragraph which contained the most licentious abuse of that House. He did not know what course they would pursue respecting it, but in his opinion it affected the character of the whole House.

were.

men circumstanced as the Parguinotes | difference between a cession made in Eu There was one part of the subject rope or America, and that made of Parga on which he could not help putting a to the Ottoman Porte? In the former question to the noble lord-be meant with the transfer of a small estate from one regard to the sufficiency of the sum pro- master to another was slightly felt in posed as an indemnity to that people for comparison of the change that was effected the loss of their property and the sur- in the present treaty. They all nearly render of their territory. The sum granted lived under the same law; they enjoyed was only 150,000l., which, according to the same state of civilization; they held the estimate of their property, was not one form of a common religion. Take by any means adequate. There ought to the case of a West India island, for inbe some inquiry into this subject. Their stance, and it would be found that its property had been estimated some time transfer from one state to another created ago at 500,000%. little alarm, and produced a comparatively trifling change of security or property. The number of persons who in consequence expatriated themselves was ex

Lord Castlereagh said, that the valuation had been made by commissioners appointed by both parties. The estimate of 500,000l. was ex parte, and highly exag-tremely small. The case of the American gerated. He could only add, that every thing which could be done for that people would be done; that great kindness was entertained towards them; that they would never be lost sight of, and that they would be treated like those American loyalists who had fought our battles, and whose interests, when persecuted on account of their attachment to us, we had protected.

Sir James Mackintosh professed himself desirous of not troubling the House long, though he owed it to himself, and the consistency of his own conduct, to state his reasons for adhering to his former opinions, notwithstanding the observations and explanations with which the noble lord had prefaced his motion. He would wave the question of policy which this cession involved; he would wave all consideration of the treatment which this people would receive in their removal, as he would hold it to be a libel on the character of the gallant officer under whose conduct it was to take place (whom he knew well to be a humane and honourable man), and a libel on the cha racter of the country, to doubt for a moment that the utmost humanity and in dulgence would not be shown them in the deplorable calamity which they were doomed to endure. Two questions arose which it was more particularly his object to discuss: 1. whether the Ottoman Porte had any right by treaty to the cession of Parga; and 2d, whether we had treated the inhabitants of that place, in ceding their territory to the Turks, in the same manner and with the same favour as the inhabitants of those places that were ceded to each other by treaties between civilized states? To the last of these questions he would first advert. What, then, was the

loyalists was not at all in point; they were individuals who had been exiled from their country by the persecution of their enemies for their attachment to us, and we had indemnified them for their losses. But the people of Parga were to be driven from their country, and an attempt was to be made to compensate them for their country. Where did we ever hear before of a whole people removing from their homes because their territory had come under the dominion of another state? But this was to take place in the case of Parga. Out of 3,500 persons, of which the population consisted, only 30 or 40 of the most worthless were to remain behind. This horrid treatment of a whole community-this tearing up by the roots of a nation, and casting of it on a different soil, could not be compared with the exile of a few individuals banished on account of their political conduct. The American loyalists had received compensation for their sufferings; but what indemnity could be given to a people for the loss of their homes? Was it thus that Britons felt? Were we to tell these people, "You are to be paid for your olive trees, you are to be paid for the stones, and bricks, and mortar of your houses, and you are to consider yourselves as then sufficiently indemnified; you are to consider only as so much stone and mortar the homes which your fathers inhabited, the churches in which you and they performed worship, and which you have consecrated by shedding your blood in their defence? He would say nothing about the cession in this case; it was not an ordinary transfer to remove a whole people from their native land, and only to grant them indemnity for their olive trees and vineyards. Returning to the first

Ordered to lie on the table.

question, what right the Ottoman Porte | upwards of three years, and it was too had to the cession of Parga? the hon. late to say to them, "You have been degentleman contended that it had none. fended by the Venetians, you have been The noble lord had said, that the treaty defended by the French, you have even of 1800 was in force in 1815; but the defended yourselves, but we have distreaty of Bucharest did not recite that covered your position to be indefensible, treaty, which it ought to have done to and therefore we surrender you to the keep it in force. Russia and Turkey had Turks." The plain fact was, that the forfeited their rights before that time. treaty of 1815 referred only to one part Russia had received Parga under its pro- of the treaty of 1800, and that reference tection, and had violated a treaty by ced- merely for description. It afforded not a ing it to France in 1807. Turkey had pretence for the cession. Their having also forfeited her rights, by destroying received our troops into their city was as the three towns on the Albanian coast, binding as a formal stipulation to protect which had been delivered up to her them. in the convention of 1800. The argument of the noble lord was singularly inconclusive. He had contended, that, because Parga was excluded from the Septinsular republic by the treaty of 1815, therefore it ought to be given up to the Porte; whereas, it seemed more natural to argue, that as that power had forfeited its rights, Parga ought to remain free. It became us to protect that people who had wrested their liberties and independence from the hands of their oppressors-who, by tearing down the French flag, had planted that on which they had unfortunately relied for protection-who had shown how they could defend themselves against their barbarous aggressors, and to whom now, as the reward of their fidelity to us, we were securing a more liberal alms, and a kinder treatment from an abominable barbarism [Hear, hear !].

Mr. Bathurst contended, that unless we had agreed to this treaty, we must have taken upon ourselves the military defence of Parga. The question was purely one of compassion and generosity. We had procured for them indemnity on leaving their homes, because they could not rely on their own means of self defence. If we were bound to maintain them in their territory, he was willing to allow that no pecuniary compensation would be adequate for the loss of it. But it ought to be proved that it belonged to the Ionian islands, and that therefore we were bound to protect its inhabitants; whereas the treaty of Paris had distinctly separated the two possessions. If they could rely upon their own resources, we might retire and leave them to defend themselves.

Lord John Russell said, that when we accepted the submission of the Parguinotes, it was upon condition that we would protect them. We had held it for

COMPLAINT AGAINST MR. FINNERTY.] The Speaker rose and informed the House, that a Stranger had been just reported to him as being in the custody of the Serjeant at Arms. The Serjeant was then called in, and reported, that in pursuance of the Sessional Order of the 21st of January, he had taken into custody a Stranger, who was in the gallery while the House was sitting, and that the said person is still in his custody.

The Speaker then informed the House of the circumstances of the case, and of offensive expressions having been used by the stranger to a messenger of the House.

William Gifford, a messenger of the House, was then called, and being examined, he stated, that, being in the sidegallery, he observed a person who was sitting in the front row of the Strangers' gallery taking notes of what was passing in the House; and he being desired by the said W. Gifford to desist, refused to do so, advanced his note-book higher than before, and said to W. Gifford, "Go to Hell." Upon this, W. G. went and reported this matter to the deputy Serjeant at Arms, and then returning to the sidegallery, he found that another person who had been taking notes had desisted, but the person now in custody was holding his book higher than before; and that the deputy serjeant, having received the direc tions of the Speaker, had then taken into custody this stranger - whose name was Peter Finnerty.

Mr. Wynn moved, that Peter Finnerty be brought to the bar in custody.

Mr. Bankes said, that from what they had heard, there appeared to be no cir cumstance of extenuation in this case as in the last : he suggested, therefore, whether it would not be as well to leave the