absolutely necessary, and they merely in- Mr. Baring hoped that no part of the money would be laid out in the purchase of lands, as he was peculiarly adverse to the grant of any more of our land in mort-plaining that in a former night's debate he main. Mr. P. Carew recommended rather that such money should be applied in the purchase of the land tax. After some observations, the Committee divided. The numbers were: For the motion, 94. Against it, 20. The several Resolutions were then agreed to. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Friday, June 25. had not said that the army in the peninsula was paid to the 24th of March, as had been reported, but to the 24th of February. AUCTION DUTIES' BILL.] On the report of this Bill being brought up, brought in last session by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and which was ultimately rejected by that House. That right hon. gentleman had, after that failure, in a manner pledged himself to the auctioneers, that no similar enactment should be attempted: but the Secretary of the Treasury, not at all deterred by the issue of the last attempt, had declared, as he was informed, that he would, notwithstanding, "try the experiment." He wished the Bill should be printed. Mr. Whitbread objected to the manner in which this Bill had been brought into the House, under a title, as he was informed, different from what it now bore, so that those persons who were most interested in its provisions, were absolutely ignoPAYMASTER GENERAL'S ACCOUNTS BILL.] rant that any such Bill was passing through Mr. Wharton moved for the second read- the Commons. He understood that the Bill ing of this Bill. was founded upon principies nearly simiMr. Creevey took that opportunity of say-lar, if not exactly so, to the Auction Bill ing a word on the place of Joint Paymaster of the Forces, and of asking whether or no it was the intention of government to suppress it? It might be recollected, that when he had made a motion to that effect, he had been answered by the gentlemen on the other side, that it was perfectly useless, as a Bill was then in its progress in another place, to suppress sinecures, under which description the place alluded to would come. It was however known to all, that the Sinecure Bill had been lost, and it was equally noterious that the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Long) discharged all the duties of the situation, while the noble lord who was his assistant paymaster (lord C. Somerset) was employed elsewhere. In fact, the place was kept up solely for securing the interest of the duke of Beaufort. It was now" try the experiment." All the commutoo late in the session, to introduce a Bill for the suppression of that place; but as long as he should be honoured with a seat in that House, he would persevere in his efforts until he had attained his object. As to the other office to which he had alluded at the same time, he meant that of Paymaster of the Marines, he was glad to see that the intention of the Admiralty was to suppress it, at least he gathered so from the paper placed on the table of the House, and he had only to express his hopes that the other place would share the same fate. Mr. Croker denied that the Board of Admiralty had in contemplation to suppress the place of Paymaster of Marines. The paper on the table proved on the contrary, that they considered that office as Mr. Wharton replied, that the Bill had never borne any other title, nor had it been clandestinely brought into the House. It had been before it several weeks, He solemnly denied he had, on any occasion, ever uttered the expression that he would nications which he had with the parties interested in the measure had been free, open and amicable. He did not anticipate any opposition to the Bill. If it was the pleasure of the House that it should be printed, he certainly should not oppose it. The assertions of the hon. member, he contended, were totally unfounded. The city of London was deeply interested in passing this Bill; a deputation from it had waited upon him, to express their great desire for such an Act, and there were petitions from various parts of the country, speaking the same language. Mr. Whitbread said, the assertions he had used were no assertions of his; they were what he had received from respectable authority. He certainly had been most grossly mis-informed as to the title of the + 897] Mr. Creevey's Complaint of a Breach of Privilege. JUNE 25, 1813. Bill. With regard to the expression of "trying the experiment," he would read to the House a sentence from a letter which contained that assertion. [Here he read, from a letter, a passage attributing those words to the hon. member.] He would suggest, however, as so much misapprehension had gone forth, whether it would not be better to print the Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he certainly had intended to bring in a Bill similar to the present, but as his time was so greatly occupied, he had requested his hon. friend to take that trouble. Mr. P. Moore said a few words in favor of the Bill; when it was committed. It was also ordered to be printed. MR. CREEVEY'S COMPLAINT OF A BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.] Mr. Creevey proceeded to make the motion of which he had given notice. As it respected the House and the public, he regretted that the motion had been so long delayed, but he was glad of this circumstance as connected personally with himself, because the further this description was removed from the sentence that had been passed upon him, the less could it be considered as one in which he himself was interested on his own account. During the progress of his trial it was never his intention to com Mr. Fremantle contended, that it was a Bill of great importance, not only as it af fected individuals, but the revenues of the crown, and therefore he saw no reason why the hon. gentleman should not anti-plain to the House. He was determined cipate a discussion upon it. One of the clauses, he understood, enacted that all property put up to sale should be liable to duty, whether sold or not. There were other points, also, that required discussion, in his opinion. Mr. Wharton said he had been totally misapprehended. What he had said was, that in the present stage of the Bill he had no reason to expect any discussion. Indeed he did not apprehend the Bill was liable to much objection; he had had frequent interviews with the principal persons affected by its provisions, and he had framed it, as nearly as possible, upon what he conceived, from those communications, would be most likely to secure the interests of the auctioneers in general. He would, however, propose, that instead of the Bill being recommitted on Monday, it should be committed now, with the amendments, and be taken into further consideration on Tuesday next. Mr. Huskisson wished it to be printed, together with the amendments. Mr. Wharton said, that when he introduced it, he intended it should have been printed after having been committed. The Bill had been communicated to a great many members: and several of the amendments were in consequence of suggestions from those gentlemen. Mock auctions, indeed, had become an evil of such intolerable extent, that some regula tion was imperiously called for. that sentence should be passed upon him before he would state to parliament that, which, in his opinion, deeply affected the privileges of every man in that House and of all his successors. Strong as his feeling undoubtedly was on the subject, he would not now ask the House to come to any resolution on the case. He merely meant at present to lay the foundation for further and ulterior deliberation on this important subject, by bringing before the House a faithful narrative of all the facts and proceedings in this case, and as an inducement to the House to listen to him with attention, he would observe that this was the first case in the history of parlia ment, in which a member of parliament had been arraigned for words which were proved to have been spoken by him in his place in parliament, and in discharge of his public duty, let such words or speech have been afterwards printed and published by him or not. The facts were these: Early in the last session of the last parliament, there was a discussion in the House of Commons on the affairs of the East India Company. He believed the question was the appointment of a committee to examine into those affairs. On that occasion he had urged the expediency of that which, in his opinion, would have been a preferable measure, viz. the opening of the trade with India to the outports. He had stated what from his own recent personal observation was the con Mr. Thompson spoke in favour of thedition of one of those out-ports, the town Bill. He thought the evil of mock auctions, which were nothing but swindling transactions, had been confined to the metropolis; but he found that they now infested every part of the country. (VOL. XXVI.) of Liverpool. He had stated the evils which had resulted from the suspension of the trade with America, and from the other circumstances which had paralyzed the commerce of Liverpool; (3 M) evils, which a free trade to India alone was calculated to remedy. In the course, of his speech he had mentioned in detail the misery which existed in Liverpool, such as the great and increasing quantity of poor, who were forced to apply for parochial relief. Shortly afterwards, during his absence on a visit to Liverpool, general Tarleton (then a member for Liverpool) declared in the House, that those detailed accounts were much exaggerated; and read a letter from a respectable merchant of Liverpool desiring him to contradict them. When he (Mr. Creevey) returned to London, it so happened that on the first day of his attendance in parliament, general Tarleton presented a petition from Liverpool, praying for a free trade to India. He (Mr. Creevey) then re-stated what he had before said (of the truth of which he had received ample confirmation during his visit); and, speaking of the distress of the town of Liverpool, took occasion to mention a great additional vexation lately inflicted on the inhabitants by new surcharges of property, which were attributed to an inspector of taxes, of the name of Kirkpatrick. Soon afterwards he saw very incorrect reports of this speech in several papers, and particularly in one published at Liverpool, and as his accuracy had been impeached by the declarations of general Tarleton, he thought it his duty, and conceived, and still did conceive it to be his right, to cause to be inserted, in that paper in which the incorrect account had been inserted, a correct statement of all that he had stated. He gave the printer of the Liverpool paper to which he had alluded authority to publish this corrected speech early in last March twelvemonth. It was printed in a few days. But it was not until the middle of October, at which period he was one of the candidates for the representation of Liverpool, after two sessions and the spring assizes at Lancaster had been permitted to pass by, that he learnt that an indictment had been preferred against him at the quarter sessions at Manchester, by the King, for a printed libel. He then thought, and he now thought, that he was completely justified in causing the publication of the speech in question. But with all due respect to the magistrates who compose the bench in the town of Manchester, who were most respectable persons, at the head of whom was a clergyman of high character, he did not conceive the quarter sessions was the proper tribunal to decide a question which involved the privileges of parliament; and he therefore moved his cause by Certiorari to the assizes at Lancaster. Last spring_assizes it came on to be tried before Mr. Justice Le Blanc. It was admitted on the part of the prosecution, that all that had been written by him had been said by him in his place in parliament. The witnesses on the part of the prosecution proved, that he had directed it to be published for the purpose of correcting misrepresentation. No attempt was made to impute to him malice or private resentment: and an ulterior stage of the trial afforded him an opportunity of denying by his affidavit, that he had ever seen the prosecutor in his life, that he had ever had any private quarrel with him, or that he entertained towards him the slightest resentment. His (Mr. Creevey's) counsel contended, upon the trial at Lancaster, that under all the circumstances of the case then proved or admitted, he was not amenable to the courts below; but Mr. Justice Le Blanc declared, that he must be bound by the case of the King v. the earl of Abingdon; that the privilege of parliament was entirely out of the question; that malice was not a necessary ingredient in a case of libel, that the only question was, if the words used were defamatory; and that in his opinion they were defamatory. On this direction, the jury, without hesitation, pronounced him (Mr. Creevey) guilty. Last term, he made an ap plication to the court of King's-bench for a new trial, on the ground of his privilege as a member of parliament, and of misdirection on the part of the judge by whom he had been already tried. He was in court when the application was made, and he witnessed the unanimous declaration of the judges, that they were bound by the case of the King . the earl of Abingdon. The lord chief justice (lord Ellenborough) said, that he had never heard a proposition so extravagant as the claim of a member of parliament to explain out of the House any conduct which he had pursued or any language which he had used within it. Mr. Justice Bailey considered the sending of a speech made in parliament to a newspaper as a degradation; although he must have known that it was the practice at all times, of the most distinguished persons, in both Houses, to publish their own speeches, and although he must have known that but a few months ago that highly respectable judge, Mr. Baron Wood, sent to a newspaper a copy of a charge to a jury which he had made, in order to correct a misre- | at all, had not rendered correction indispresentation which had gone forth with pensable. So far, therefore, were these respect to it. On the 20th of May, he two cases from having any affinity, that (Mr. Creevey), was brought up in the they appeared to him to be in perfect opcourt of King's-bench to receive judg- position. With respect to the decision in ment; when Mr. Justice Grose, in dis- his case, he begged the House to consider charging that duty, pronounced sentence to what extent the doctrine might be carupon him, that he should pay a fine of ried if the law were such as it had been 100l. to the King, and be committed to the declared to be. It would for ever put an King's-bench until the fine was paid. The end to all communication between the relearned judge almost made an apology for presentative and the constituent bodies in his lenity, by declaring that the printed this kingdom. That which he might not paper which had been the subject of pro- publish by writing he presumed he might secution, was not so much a libel upon the not publish by speaking. If Mr. Justice tax-gatherer as a libel on Mr. Perceval, Grose was right in proclaiming his offence and a proceeding bottomed in disaffection to be bottomed in disaffection to the state to the state-thus, while passing sentence (that was in proclaiming it to be a seditious for a libel, most unjustly and most illegally libel), then, had he (Mr. Creevey), instead libelling him (Mr. Creevey), by ascribing of printing his speech as he had done, to him two offences for which he had never waited until he became a candidate for been tried. Now what was the nature the representation of Liverpool, and on of the case so strongly relied on as the the hustings there, either voluntarily or in ground of his conviction? Let it be com- answer to a proposed question, stated that pared with his own. In lord Abingdon's which he in fact had written; and had that case no public subject was concerned. He seditious libel been communicated to the had made a speech in the House of Lords, Attorney General by some one who could solely directed against the professional cha- have proved its utterance, the Attorney racter of an individual, a Mr. Sermon, his General would doubtless have filed an inattorney. It was proved on the trial that formation, and, according to the justice he had had a private quarrel with this gen- dealt out to other libellers, he (Mr. Creetleman, and that he bore him actual malice. vey) would most probably have expiated It was proved on the trial that he had this offence in a distant gaol. Was this gone to the House of Lords with his speech English law, or was it not? Unquestionready written, that immediately after he ably it appeared to him, that he was just had delivered it he caused it to be printed, as liable to be punished for a viva voce and that he paid for such printing, and statement to his constituents, as for one that he had evidently done all this with a written and published. If so, it was most view, under the shelter of the privileges extraordinary, that up to the present time, of the House of Lords, of making a no one had ever heard of any member of personal attack on an individual. Such parliament having been prosecuted for was the case of lord Abingdon. What was any statement or account that he might his own? The speech which he had made think it his duty to give to his constituents related to a public cause. His observa- on any of the various subjects in which tions bore on a public servant, the pro- they might be supposed to be interested. priety of whose conduct was most import It was well known that the greatest men ant to his Majesty's subjects-a collector had undergone parliamentary accusation. of taxes. He had spoken of a grievance The great lord Bacon himself had not deeply affecting a great and populous escaped impeachment. If any member of part of the empire, with which by birth parliament of that day had told his conand residence and various other ties he was stituents the reasons which had induced closely connected. No attempt was made him to vote against lord Bacon, how could to prove against him any private quarrel he have done so without using, defamatory or personal resentment, and it was proved words? [The Attorney General shook his by him that so far from going to the head.] The hon. and learned gentleman House of Commons to make the speech for opposite seemed to dissent from this prothe purpose of having it printed, the speech position. For his part, he was sure it would never have been printed if the in- could not be denied, and he should be glad accuracy of those to whom the standing to hear the Attorney General deny if he orders of the House refused permission to could, the truth of what he was stating publish the proceedings of parliament or the inference he drew from it. He had voted for the expulsion of Mr. Hunt laid down a rule only for one party, for the impeachment of lord Melville, for and not for their opponents, who began to the address to deprive the duke of York conceive, that if what was said on one of his situation as commander in chief. side might be published, that which was In all these cases he could not conceive urged on the other was entitled to the how it would have been possible for him same privilege. Accordingly lord Digby, to account for his conduct to his consti- who had made an excellent speech on one tuents without using defamatory words, of the stages of lord Strafford's Attainder and thereby being guilty, according to Bill, exposing in the strongest point of view modern law, of a libel. The absence the abominable and illegal cruelty of that of malice would be nothing, the bona whole measure, was afterwards induced to fide nature of the proceeding and the print it, Mr. St. John's and Mr. Pym's discharge of his duty to his constituents speeches on the same subject, but on the op would be nothing; if the words were posite side, being already printed by order proved to be defamatory, they would be of the House. Upon this the House of Comconsidered as a fit subject for prosecution. mons, i. e. the prevailing party in it, took ofIt had long been considered as a settled fence, and appointed a committee to inquire point, that parliamentary reports should into the printing of speeches by members, be given; so that according to the new and referred the report of lord Digby's to dictum of the judges, the members of that this committee. On the 13th of July, 1641, House were at the mercy of the reporters sir John Evelyn having produced the refor all they might say within these walls, port, they resolved that the said printed and at that of the judges for all they speech contained matter untrue and scanmight explain to their constituents with- dalous, as it related to the proceedings in out them. All accounts given, therefore, both Houses of Parliament; that it was a however correct, by themselves, to those criminal offence against the legislature, who elected them, or by whom they and should be burned by the hands of the sought to be elected, were attended with common hangman.* He stated this case danger, and exposed them to the liability in order to shew that the printing a speech of prosecution. He was perfectly ready made in parliament was an offence, if an to admit, that he and every member of offence at all, cognisable by parliament that House was amenable for misconduct alone. If subject to any other jurisdiction, to parliament itself. What alone he ob-how had it not occurred to Mr. Solicitor jected to was, the jurisdiction of the infe- St. John to institute legal proceedings rior courts over such cases. He had of course, before he brought this subject under the consideration of the House, looked for such light and instruction from precedents as the Journals and history of parliament afforded, and he would state such information as he found it, faithfully to the House. In the time of the Long Parliament, when the House of Commons was in the habit of debating with closed doors, the attention of the House seemed to have been first called to the subject of printing speeches. The House then ordered the speeches of their favourite members to be published. Amongst these was Mr. Solicitor St. John's speech on one occasion, and Mr. Pym's on lord Strafford's Attainder Bill. These were members which at that time were at the head of the party which had then most influence in parliament. King Charles the First himself, in one of his messages or speeches to the House of Commons, justifies himself against what he considers mis-statements or misrepresentations in a "printed" speech of Mr. Pym. The Commons, however, had against lord Digby, who had gone so far as even to impeach in his speech the testimony of sir Harry Vane? The House did indeed soon afterwards address the king not to confer any more honours or marks of his favour on lord Digby, but never appeared to imagine that there existed any legal ground for a prosecution. An order was subsequently made interdicting any person from publishing any thing said or done in that House. This was certainly a strong example of the abuse of privilege, but it still served to shew that they always considered themselves as the only judges who had any control over their own proceedings. In the same parliament sir E. Deering printed a speech which he made in favour of the established church, which being contrary to the principles of the ruling party in the Commons, they voted that it should be burned by the common hangman, and expelled sir Edward Deering. Now, in order to * See the new Parliamentary History, vol. 2, p. 883. + Ibid. vol. 2, p. 1072. |