was then called in and examined.

.—Look at that paper, and say whether if is a correct copy of the manuscript which was given to the paper on that evening?—I have no doubt that it is a correct one, as far as printing goes.

.—Who wrote that?—I did. Were you the short-hand writer who took down the notes on that occasion?—I was. I have been for some years in the habit of reporting the proceedings of this House, and have always endeavoured to be as accurate in their representation as I possibly could; but owing to the confusion and disorder which sometimes prevail in the gallery, it is not always possible to give with accuracy what occurs. With respect to that part of the debate of which complaint is now made from the number of persons passing and re-passing the seat which I occupied, it was out of my power to follow the hon. member (Mr. Hume) regularly through his observations. Anxious to collect what had occurred during the confusion to which I have alluded, I asked a stranger who was placed before me, and from him I received, if not in exact words, at least the point which I afterwards embodied in my report. As to any intention of misrepresenting what occurred, I totally disclaim it. This is the first time during the 10 years I have been engaged in reporting, that any objection has been made against any report that came from my hands.

.—Are the papers to which you have just alluded a transcript from your notes?—They are from my shorthand notes; that is to say, as far as the confusion I have alluded to would permit.—Have you the original notes from which you copied?—I have not; and though I have used every diligence in looking for them this morning, I have not been able to find them; the reason, perhaps, will be explained by the circumstance, that being occupied in other pursuits, I often write upon the slips which I have used in taking my short-hand notes. Do you take a speech of that length on slips?—I take my notes on slips of paper made up into the form of a book.

.—Did you take your notes so on that night?—I did: the usual practice is, with gentlemen who take notes, to write from them on small slips of paper, which, the moment they are finished, are put into the hands of the printer. The House will perceive, therefore, that there was no time left for deliberation, except so far as one can deliberate while he is occupied in writing.

wished to know whether the parenthesis, mentioning the cheers, was inserted in the copy?—It was.—Was the name of Mr. Canning mentioned in the witness's copy?—It was.—Was it from the stranger in the gallery that the witness received information as to the name? —The stranger mentioned it; but I had a strong feeling that allusion was made to Mr. Canning by the hon. member, and I then noticed it. In allusion to a smile from the other side, I think I recollect the hon. member having said, "ministers may laugh, but let them look at the other side of the picture," and I followed up the sentence with the information supplied by the stranger. I have since seen the hon. member's own account of that part of his speech, and that is the only circumstance which induces me to think that I was mistaken.

.—Had you reason to think that Mr. Canning was then in his place?—I had; I had reason to believe that he was, from the frequent allusions which, in my opinion, were made to him during the whole of the hon. member's speech. I hope the House will now allow me to express my sincere, but manly contrition, for having in misrepresenting, however unintentionally, any thing that occurred, committed this error. I had no intention but to give the most faithful account in my power.—Is witness the only reporter on The Times?—No; there are 12 or 13 besides myself; they each take a short time in a debate; and here it may be necessary to inform the House, that in addition to the inconvenience to which I have before alluded, from want of proper accommodation, there often arises another, from the circumstance of one gentleman going on in the middle of a speech. Allusions are often made to what occurred before the individual gets into the gallery, and which, even when he hears, he cannot always understand. It often occurs, even among honourable members, that a misunderstanding takes place of what has occurred in debate; and of course the difficulty of hearing must be greater to those who write.—The witness was then ordered to withdraw.

said, he had heard nothing which could make him alter the opinion he had before formed, that the publication in question could not be the result of a mistake. Nothing had been said which could make him believe that it was any thing but a gross and libellous publication. He maintained that even if, in the course of debate, reflections were made by one member, alluding to another, no printer would be justified in laying them before the public. For this he had the authority of Mr. Fox, who in 1788 held, that though members might be justified, in the course of debate, in using particular language towards each other, yet a printer would not be justified in sending it forth to the public; and he could imagine cases where such conduct would be a high breach of the privileges of the House. It seemed to him (Mr. W.) that though the publication of what passed in the House was tolerated by connivance, yet that, when given, the parties so giving it to the public were bound to give it correctly. The House could not take into consideration the great dispatch with which those debates were given in overlooking any misrepresentation which they might convey; for though he would admit the advantage of their going forth to the world, yet he thought it better they should be delayed a little, than come forth in an incorrect state, and without examination. The hon. member concluded by moving, "That the said paragraph is a scandalous misrepresentation of the debates and proceedings of this House, a calumnious libel on the character of one of its members, and an aggravated breach of its privileges."

said, he did not rise for the purpose of opposing the motion, as far as the breach of privilege was concerned; but he would reserve his opinion upon any measure with which the hon. member might be disposed to follow it up; for, undoubtedly, he should bear in mind the evidence in extenuation which had been given. It was certain, that if the resolution now proposed were carried, the matter could not rest there. It was certain that if the House agreed to this resolution, they should go further; and perhaps before it was put, it would be best to consider, whether, under all the circumstances of extenuation which the House had heard, they would take a step which would bind them, as undoubtedly this severe censure would, to another. Upon the evidence which had been now received, he doubted the propriety of passing a re- solution, the consequence of which must be, to commit the person who had offended. If after this resolution they could stop short at a reprimand, his objection to it would be removed. He was not indisposed to concur with the terms of it; but there was a difficulty which was presented by the strength of them, and which might perhaps be got over by adding words to the effect, that in consideration of the circumstances which had been stated, the House was induced to remain satisfied with a reprimand. Were it not for the circumstances of extenuation which had been brought to light, he should have joined in voting for the severest punishment which it was in their power to inflict.

thought the hon. and learned gentleman right in his construction of the rule of proceeding, that the punishment should be commensurate with the terms of the resolution. The course proposed appeared to him to be that pointed out by the nature of the case, although the extent of the punishment might be matter of subsequent deliberation. Adverting to the evidence, some of the circumstances stated appeared to be somewhat singularly co-incident—that the passage in question should have been so imperfectly heard; that the witness should have adopted the rest on the representation of a mere stranger; that it should have been put so offensively; and that the name, with the addition of cheers, should have been inserted in a parenthesis. He thought that, under all these circumstances, the House could not do less than adopt the resolution. Another unfortunate incident was, the loss of the witness's notes, which it was extremely desirable to have had produced.

observed, that he regarded the defence which had been made by the gentleman who had withdrawn from the bar as a most ingenuous, rather than as that ingenious one which the right hon. gentleman seemed to consider it. It had about it every natural indication of sincerity; and the statement which had been made bore with it all the appearance of truth. For himself he might observe, that having frequently observed the right hon. gentleman (Canning) prone to associate ludicrous images with subjects of distress [cries of No, no!] if, then, he was mistaken on this point, it was not surprising that the witness should also have been deceived. His whole deportment at the bar established the fact, that the mis-

¶

representation in question had originated in error, and had not sprung from any motive in the least savouring of malignity. He himself was persuaded, that there had been no intention to misrepresent; and with this persuasion on his mind, he could not, as an honest man, vote that the paper was a scandalous and calumnious libel.

said, that if the proper course of proceeding had not been before evident, the speech of the hon. gentleman was calculated to guide them to it. The hon. gentleman had made one more of those attempts that had of late been so frequent, to impute to his right hon. friend conduct and feelings of which he was incapable. If such imputations were followed up in the daily prints, he would leave it to the House to judge what must become of the privileges of parliament. He must deny that the question of intention was one to which the House was at all bound to advert; it was into the truth of the averments alone they ought to inquire; for it was obviously impossible to trace the actual motive operating upon a reporter's mind. If they found that the character and qualities ascribed to it did belong to the paper in question—that it did contain a false and calumnious account of what had taken place within the House; then, however the manner of the individual might have impressed them in his favour, it was their duty to mark their sense of it in distinct and unequivocal terms. With regard to the circumstance of the offensive passage being adopted on the suggestion of a stranger, be was not disposed to consider that this would furnish any excuse, even if the account were true beyond all doubt. The hon. and learned gentleman had admitted that he was ready to affirm the resolution, and was merely desirous that the consequences should not be pushed too far. But how would the House stand, if, after a resolution had been passed, declaring that a gross libel had been published on their proceedings, they should be satisfied with a mere reprimand, when the defence that induced them thus to mitigate their judgment could not appear on their Journals? After a commitment, the circumstances of extenuation or explanation might be set forth in a petition, and an opportunity be thus afforded for recording the grounds of that lenient consideration which the House might be disposed to entertain. But if they had any regard for their own dignity or privileges, and unless they were willing to leave them entirely at the mercy of the reporters, they would, without bearing hard on the individual who was the subject of animadversion, and who ought not to have reported any matter on the idle suggestion of a stranger, deal with this case on public grounds alone. It was not a case which ought to be tampered with; and whether the offence proceeded from inconsiderateness, or any other cause, that was a matter to be hereafter pleaded; but he felt himself bound to say, in the present state of the proceeding, the House could not, consistently with its privileges or dignity, receive any communication from the individual who had been examined, until he should be in custody.

said, he had not meant to justify the publication, but to object to any terms in the resolution that should express or imply an intention on the part of the author to misrepresent. In his other observations he had been influenced by no wish to reflect on the right hon. gentleman.

said, he had viewed the publication as one of a peculiarly aggravated nature: it contained an untrue account of what had been said, and was accompanied by a sort of scenic description which heightened its effect. He should vote for the resolution; but he thought the House would act wisely, in reserving to itself the consideration of the extent of punishment. But it was important that the grounds of their judgment, whatever it might be, should appear upon their Journals. The manner of the witness had made a general prepossession in his favour, and he could almost wish that the language of the resolution was less strong. The witness had exposed himself to severe reproach, but his conduct that day at the bar recommended him to their most favourable consideration. He had incurred much blame in adopting the representation of a stranger, and this was in itself a great offence. At the same time, the manner in which the misstatement was accounted for, satisfied him of its sincerity. With regard to the character of the newspaper in question, he thought it much improved upon the judgment which he was the day before inclined to form of it. It clearly appeared that the report had passed through no intermediate hands, but without being seen by any other person, had passed with the utmost rapidity from the writer to the publisher. It had been truly added, that there was no time for deliberation; and it was certainly difficult to believe that the witness could have come into the gallery with malice prepense, or a determination to publish something offensive to the right hon. gentleman. He conceived, therefore, that whilst some punishment was necessary, the House would do itself honour in rendering it as mild and of as short duration as possible.

observed, that in 1812 a gross misrepresentation had been made of a statement respecting a piece of very remarkable evidence before a committee, which had been submitted by the hon. member for Winchelsea. The evidence was of such a nature that it had been struck out of the minutes of the committee, but had been read in the House by the hon. member. It was represented in the newspaper that this evidence had been given by another hon. member; and although the hon. member for Sandwich declared that, living in the neighbourhood of a manufacturing district, his life might be endangered by its publication, the editor thought proper to publish it, and notwithstanding this double falsehood, had not been punished by the House. He thought this a much stronger case than the present, and as the author of that publication had been suffered to escape, it would not be fair to adopt strong measures in a case in which the error was confessed, and the cause of it explained.

was sure that the House would appreciate the delicacy of those feelings which had induced the right hon. gentleman to absent himself on this occasion. He was also sure that if he had been present he would have been deeply impressed by the explanation that had been given. That right hon. gentleman had observed, that if any member could lay his hand upon his heart, and state that he did not believe the paragraph in question to have originated in motives of malignity, he would take no further notice of the business. He believed that many hon. members, after the evidence which they had heard, were prepared to express their belief that there had been no malignity. There was one point to which he wished for a moment to call their attention; it related to a smile, which had been described as pervading the Treasury bench. In the statement of the hon. gentleman himself (Mr. Hume) all reference to this was omitted; but he understood from several hon. members then present, that such allusions had been made by him. He mentioned this, because it evidently took away from the supposed circumstantiality of the misstatement. He was anxious that the terms of the resolution should be such as would carry with them the general feeling of the House, and it appeared to him that those now proposed were too strong and went beyond that feeling. It might be true, that the House could not Investigate the question of intention when the maintenance of its privileges became necessary; but it might at least be admitted as a consideration in determining the measure of punishment, and he himself should vote for the most lenient.

said, the last two speeches would be sufficient to guide his vote, if it had not been previously determined on the same side. He, for one, was ready without hesitation to state upon his honour that he believed the witness had not been influenced by the malignant feeling, or desire, to insult the right hon. gentleman. He did not mean to justify the report, and was persuaded the day before that it was a calumnious libel. The hon. mover would hardly have offered so strong a resolution to the House, if he had drawn it up after he had heard what had been stated at the bar. Anxious as he was to support the privileges of the House, he should be sorry to do so by an act of oppression. He should willingly vote that the publication was an unjustifiable breach of privilege; but as he could not keep intention out of his view, and as an unqualified apology had been made, he could not join in any vote, the almost necessary consequence of which would be a commitment to Newgate.

observed, that if the present motion had been to be decided merely upon what had passed on the preceding day, he should have willingly acquiesced in it; but after the explanations which had been given, he did not apprehend that any member, viewing the subject as qualified by those explanations, could avoid coming to a different conclusion. A clear statement, a manly apology, had been made. He could not exclude from his consideration the point of intention, even although the consequence might be, that the reasons of this proceeding would not appear upon their Journals. It would, he thought, be better for the House, and for the public, if some further accommodation were furnished to the persons, who, notwithstanding the difficulties in which they were placed, already performed with no small diligence and ability the task of communicating to the country what was said and done in parliament. Whatever additional advantages they enjoyed would be accompanied by a proportionate responsibility.

said, that the first part of his resolution was, that the words were a scandalous misrepresentation of the debates and proceedings of that House. Was there any man who could read an account of what was said to have passed, as reported in that paper, and contrast it with the account of what did really pass, as given, by the hon. member, and not say that this was a most gross and scandalous misrepresentation? He referred particularly to that part about which he had heard no explanation—he meant the "continued cheers." Now, that was a circumstance which the reporter could not possibly mistake. The second part of the resolution was, that this was a calumnious libel on one of the members of that House. Now, if the passage did not amount to a calumnious libel on the right hon. gentleman, he did not know what was a calumnious libel. The concluding allegation was, that this was an aggravated breach of privilege. Now, when it was considered that the taking any report of their proceedings was a breach of privilege, he did not think that to the present case he could apply a slighter expression.—The resolution was agreed to.

said it now became his duty to follow up the measure which the House had just agreed to. It was necessary that some punishment should be inflicted upon the individual who had been guilty of so great a breach of privilege. At the same time, he wished to take into consideration every circumstance which could be taken to be in extenuation. He did not repent their having listened to those observations which they had just heard, because he did think this that reasonable course, which not mercy alone but justice called for. When an individual came before them to speak to a subject of this nature, he should be permitted to state any circumstance which could go in extenuation. He well knew that it was impossible to give the exact expression of any man, but he could not conceive how it was possible for such a perversion of what really passed as this was to have taken place. The notice of "cheers," he certainly considered as giving a character and colour to these proceedings. It might be material here to refer to the period of the commencement of the French revolution; when the legislative assembly admitted persons indiscriminately into their gallery, to give reports of their proceedings. They were given with so many political partialities, and in so garbled and inaccurate a manner, that in order to guard against this growing abuse, it became necessary for the principal members to publish newspapers of their own, with reports of their several speeches. He had certainly experienced surprise at the general ability and accuracy with which the debates of parliament were given; especially considering the very short time in which, they had to appear. He did not, however, see that their being published at 9 or 10 in the morning, instead of 3 in the afternoon, for instance, was a sufficient advantage to justify or outweigh an inaccuracy or misrepresentation of this kind. It was necessary that the editors and reporters of those papers which gave the debates, should feel their responsibility, and know that the House would visit on their heads those breaches of privilege which would not be suffered in other quarters. He thought it one of the greatest advantages resulting from the enjoyment of these privileges, that the House had the immediate means of punishment, in such cases, within its power; and that, consequently, it was enabled to inflict a more lenient one, than if it were compelled to resort to a court of justice. He was very willing to allow, that every circumstance of extenuation which could be, ought to be admitted, in regard to the person charged and as to the punishment, he was of opinion that they would be quite justified in giving a very short term. But, considering the nature of the offence charged, he thought it necessary to move that Mr. Collier be committed to Newgate."

said, that with respect to what had fallen from the hon. gentleman about the "cheers" upon which so much had been observed, he was entering the House at the time alluded to, and was on the floor, when he certainly did hear several cheers from those benches. The hon. member said, he was of opinion that this misrepresentation originated in mistake, he was the more inclined to think so, from the manner in which it had been, just explained, and the great appearance of sincerity on the witness's part.

expressed his conviction that there could hardly be but one sentiment upon the story told by the person in question, as to the origin of the gross mistake. Now, he thought that the House in general believed that story, no member having put any questions which evinced a doubt about it. Any person hearing the passage in question read, must have been disposed to have concluded that it was not only an unfounded misrepresentation, but a wilful one; that it was dictated by malignant and personal feelings. He was willing to believe the disclaimer which had met the charge of personal feeling; but with respect to the culpable negligence with which the reporter stood charged, the House was bound to take into its consideration what had been the usual course in these cases. The instance alluded to by the noble lord went strikingly to show that persons in the situation of reporters might be well excused for misrepresenting the proceedings of the House, and believing that it would not be visited by its interference. He would also remind the House of a speech by the noble member for York. In one part of a particular paper there was a very correct report of it; but in another part, a most inaccurate report of the same speech, copied from another print, was made the vehicle of those slanders, which were heaped upon himself, the humble individual who now addressed them. But instances of this kind were numerous. No longer ago than yesterday a speech of his hon. and learned friend (sir James Mackintosh) which the whole House had heard with admiration, was most grossly misrepresented in the paper to which he alluded; and that, not after a short time, not in a hurry, but after several days, and in conjunction with several other articles of the same indecent character. This speech was declared to be a most shameless and impudent attack on Ferdinand 7th. It was for hon. gentlemen to determine whether the reporters, partly by the necessities of their situation and partly by the lenity shown to them by the House on former occasions, had not been misled. He did not say this in any view of opposing the motion; but he thought it should make them cautious how they meted out punishment for an offence which they might in some degree be considered to have encouraged. Taking all 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 preserve 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.

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.

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.

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.

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. Ea 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- 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 indifference— in 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 express his opinion in favour of the generally 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, judgment, 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.

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.

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.

hoped the hon. gentleman would make it a motion for commitment to the custody of the serjeant-at-arms, because he was convinced that to be committed 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.

also preferred the moderate punishment. To men of education and literary talents, a punishment of the extreme kind would be keenly felt.

said, he did not feel the least difficulty in acceding to the general wish of the House. He was; therefore, ready to alter the words of his motion, and he trusted sufficient would have been done to warn the daily press against a repetition of the offence which brought the individual in question under the displeasure of the House. It was then ordered, nem. con. "That John Payne Collier, for his said offence, be committed to the custody of the Serjeant at arms."

, in bringing up certain papers relative to the cession of Parga, said, he wished to undeceive the House as to the part which our government had acted; we had never delivered Parga up to the Turks; all we agreed to in the treaty was, to withdraw our troops from the town, and leave the inhabitants to themselves. The only object the Parguinotes had, was, that the British government should make the best terms which it could for them. No authority had been given to any British officer to hold out to these people the prospect that this government would take them under its protection. No officer had given them any promise by which the good faith of the British government could be compromised; for the terms of our treaty had been fulfilled by the withdrawing of our troops. In the Ionian islands they could be protected by our government, and there they would be treated with every attention to their interests by sir T. Maitland, who had always conducted himself with distinguished ability and humanity.

was ready to admit, that all the treaties between Russia and Turkey, and those between France and this country, particularly the treaty of Amiens, bad been revived; but still he thought the case stood in favour of the Parguinotes— in favour of our defending them. If the treaty of 1800 was revived, and we, in terms of it, were obliged to deliver up Parga to the fate to which that treaty consigned it, the noble lord entirely overlooked the power which the inhabitants retained in that treaty to provide for themselves. If we revived the treaty in favour of one party, we were surely bound to enforce the provisions which it contained in favour of the other. By a supplementary treaty, the Ottoman Porte agreed to the independence of the Parguinotes, on condition of their allowing a Turkish superintendent to reside in their town; but that arrangement had been overthrown by the unfortunate state of things between Russia and Turkey. Let those, therefore, who were in a beneficial state before the treaty was broken, be restored to their former condition, when the treaty was again recognized. The Parguinotes, in virtue of former treaties, had a claim on Turkey. The effects of the arrangement to which the noble lord had agreed, were, that he had forfeited the good will of Greece, and given up the key to supplies from the Albanian continent. In connexion with this question, we ought to consider the influence which France, Russia, and Austria, were gaining in the divan. Every one knew that the Turkish trade was of great advantage to this country; and if we had cultivated the good will of the Grecian islands which we took under our protection, we should have had an additional security and facility for that trade. At present, however, we had only laid ourselves under the difficulty of protecting islands that were not able to maintain themselves. He should have entered into the question at greater length, but for the calamitous news which had reached this country, and which rendered any thing he might say useless.

thought that the Parguinotes had a strong claim on our protection.

said, it was natural there should be a strong feeling in favour of men circumstanced as the Parguinotes were. There was one part of the subject on which he could not help putting a question to the noble lord—he meant with regard to the sufficiency of the sum proposed as an indemnity to that people for the loss of their property and the surrender of their territory. The sum granted was only 150,000l., which, according to the estimate of their property, was not by any means adequate. There ought to be some inquiry into this subject. Their property had been estimated some time ago at 500,000l.

said, that the valuation had been made by commissioners appointed by both parties. The estimate of 500,000l. was ex parte, and highly exaggerated. 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.

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 character of the country, to doubt for a moment that the utmost humanity and indulgence 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 difference between a cession made in Europe or America, and that made of Parga to the Ottoman Porte? In the former the transfer of a small estate from one master to another was slightly felt in comparison of the change that was effected in the present treaty. They all nearly lived under the same law; they enjoyed the same state of civilization; they held one form of a common religion. Take the case of a West India island, for instance, and it would be found that its transfer from one state to another created little alarm, and produced a comparatively trifling change of security or property. The number of persons who in consequence expatriated themselves was extremely small. The case of the American 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 question, what right the Ottoman Porte had to the cession of Parga? the hon. gentleman contended that it had none. The noble lord had said, that the treaty of 1800 was in force in 1815; but the treaty of Bucharest did not recite that treaty, which it ought to have done to keep it in force. Russia and Turkey had forfeited their rights before that time. Russia had received Parga under its protection, and had violated a treaty by ceding it to France in 1807. Turkey had also forfeited her rights, by destroying the three towns on the Albanian coast, which had been delivered up to her 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!].

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.

said, that when we accepted the submission of the Parguinotes, it was upon condition that we would protect them. We bad held it for upwards of three years, and it was too late to say to them, "You have been defended by the Venetians, you have been defended by the French, you have even defended yourselves, but we have discovered your position to be indefensible, and therefore we surrender you to the Turks." The plain fact was, that the treaty of 1815 referred only to one part of the treaty of 1800, and that reference merely for description. It afforded not a pretence for the cession. Their having received our troops into their city was as binding as a formal stipulation to protect them.

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.

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.

, a messenger of the House, was then called, and being examined, he stated, that, being in the side-gallery, 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 side-gallery, 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 directions of the Speaker, had then taken into custody this stranger—whose name was Peter Finnerty.

said, that from what they had heard, there appeared to be no circumstance of extenuation in this case as in the last: he suggested, therefore, whether it would pot be as well to leave the individual in custody, until he acknowledged the contumacious course which, it seemed, he had pursued. If, however, there was any desire to give him an opportunity of refuting the accusation, he had no objection. It was possible that an accusation might be got up through misapprehension or mistake, which could be refuted by the party against whom it was brought. If, on being brought to the bar, the individual did not rebut or acknowledge his offence, and in the latter case throw himself on the mercy of the House, then, indeed, he thought it would be incumbent on the House to commit the individual to Newgate.

was of opinion, that the proper course would be, to bring the individual to the bar to hear what he had to say in his justification.

was then brought to the bar in custody, and, being examined, denied having used the expression imputed to him. He thought it impossible, from his general manners and habits, that he could have used such language; and in excuse of any warmth or contumacy which he might have manifested, alleged that the messenger had addressed him uncivilly, saying "Finnerty, you are not to write mere, put down your book:" that he had been a reporter of debates for twenty years, and had never before heard of the rule that the reporters were to confine themselves to the back row: that he and all the reporters were deeply interested in the business of the evening, and therefore he had advanced to the front row.

was again called in, and being examined, he further stated, that the expression used by Mr. Finnerty was, "Go to hell;" that he addressed him civilly, saying, "Mr. Finnerty." The front row of the gallery was full, and two others were taking notes, who desisted when desired.—That P. F. did not retire to the back seat of the gallery till the order had been given to take him into custody; but believes he was not then aware of such order. That the invariable rule against taking notes in the front of the gallery was known to all the reporters. That to his knowledge, Mr. Finnerty had frequented the gallery as a reporter for 10 years; ever since W. G. had been employed at the House of Commons. That P. F. had never to his knowledge attempted to take notes before, sitting in the front row: that P. F, did not move when desired: that when W. G. returned from reporting the case to the serjeant, he found P. F. sitting in the same place, and he advanced his note-book more conspicuously than before. That he continued in the front row ten minutes after he was first ordered to desist.

(another messenger of the House) was then called in, and being examined, he stated that he heard W. G. request P. F. to desist from taking notes; and heard the latter say in reply, "Go to hell," as audibly as J. P. was then speaking at the bar. Moreover, that P. F. did not desist, but conspicuously elevated his book. The witness was within two feet of W. G., about a yard and a half from P. F. at the time. That at last P. F. withdrew when ordered.

(another messenger of the House) was then called in, and being examined, stated, That he heard W. G. desire P. F. to desist from taking notes in the front row of the gallery, and he heard P. F. say, "Go to hell." That W. G. addressed him as "Mr. Finnerty." The witness does not know any of the strangers who sat near P. F.

said, that under the circumstances of the case, after the course which the prisoner at the bar had thought proper to adopt, in wholly denying a charge that had since been substantiated in evidence, he thought the House, in vindication of its own honour and in support of its privileges, was called on to take a severer course than was usual. He should therefore move, "That Peter Finnerty be committed-to his majesty's gaol of Newgate."

did not rise to oppose the proceeding the House might think proper to adopt, but to submit to its consideration a circumstance that had come to his knowledge since the individual was brought to the bar. The individual still persisted in asserting, that he was not conscious of having used the expression imputed to him, or any other offensive expression towards the messenger; but, if he were permitted to appear at the bar again, he was ready to express his sincere sorrow for having given offence, if, without any recollection, he had done so. He would submit to the House the propriety of giving the individual the opportunity of offering an apology to the House. [Cries of No!]. If his hon. friend would withdraw his motion, he would, unless the sense of the House was against him, move, "That Mr. Finnerty be again called to the bar."

said, that many individuals in the gallery had heard the conversation, and had also heard what had been stated at the bar; and he was convinced that if they believed the stranger had been unjustly accused of using the offensive expression, they would have volunteered their evidence to free him from the charge. This circumstance established the fact, beyond the possibility of a doubt, that the stranger had used the offensive and disrespectful expression imputed to him.

said, he was acquainted with two respectable gentlemen who were in the gallery when the circumstance took place, and from whom, perhaps, if examined, some further information might be collected.

, an inhabitant of Leicester, was called at the suggestion of Mr. Pares, and being examined, stated, That he sat within two or three of P. F., and between him and the messengers who were about four yards distant; did not hear him say, "Go to hell;" rather thinks he said, "I don't care a damn for you." He did not see him advance his note-book higher; but he did not take down his book, and continued writing in it.—His reply to the messenger followed immediately, without consideration.

, another inhabitant of Leicester, was then called in, and being examined, he stated, That when the messenger desired P. F. to desist from taking notes in the front gallery, his reply was, "That he would speak to the Speaker,—or appeal to the Speaker." Did not hear him say, "Go to hell." Does not know that he said, "I don't care a damn." Did not hear that; but believes he did hear him say, "I don't care a something." He did not desist from taking notes.

, esq. a magistrate of the county of Lincoln, called in and examined; he stated, That P. F. was writing on the green cloth before him, in the front of the gallery. That the request of the messenger, that he would desist, was not complied with. That P. F. said immediately, "Go to hell," and further, "Go and be damned;" and with an oath in the phrase, said, "I'll appeal to the Speaker." —The witness sat next to P. F. on the right hand side,—knew him to be P. F. because he had been confined in Lincoln Castle.

said, that under the contradictory testimony the House had heard on both sides, especially as it could not be doubted but that all parties wished to give fair and honest evidence, he suggested to the hon. member the propriety of withdrawing his motion, in order to give the prisoner an opportunity of appearing at the bar to offer such an apology or explanation as the circumstances seemed to require—[No! no!]—and which, at all events, was due, on account of his having interfered, in any way, with the messengers, in the execution of their duty. If he were not out of order, he would move, as an amendment, "That Mr. Finnerty be again called to the bar of the House."

said, he knew not for what purpose the prisoner could be called to the bar, unless there was a feeling in the hon. member's mind, that he would make such an apology as could be received in mitigation of punishment. If he was disposed to make an apology for these words, it would place his case in a different situation from that in which it at present stood.

said, that having left the House for the purpose of writing a letter, he accidentally met the prisoner in the lobby—and, the offensive expressions having been positively stated to have been used by him, and by him as positively denied, he asked, whether it was possible there could be any misapprehension in his mind as to what occurred? The prisoner stated distinctly, "As far as my recollection goes, I did not use those expressions. I was taking a debate, on a very interesting occasion, and being interrupted, I might have used a hasty expression—but I know I left the gallery, fully determined to submit to the authority of the House." He asked the stranger "was he disposed to make an apology to the House for using even a hasty expression to the messenger?" The prisoner said "Yes;—that he would make any fair apology that might be required of him." Therefore it was that he proposed to call the prisoner to the bar, in order that he might offer an apology.

said, the ground on which he made his motion was not so much on account of the original offence, which might have arisen from the heat of the moment, as with reference to what had afterwards occurred. If the prisoner had thrown himself on the mercy of the House and asked pardon, perhaps the matter might have rested there. But, as he always held that the acknowledgment of an offence went greatly in mitigation of it, so he thought that a bold and unqualified denial was an aggravation of the error. As there appeared to be some dissimilarity in the evidence, and as the prisoner was ready to make an apology for what had occurred, he had no objection to withdraw his motion.

said the had recently seen the prisoner, who authorized him to state, and also requested another hon. member to declare, that he was not conscious of having used any offensive language whatsoever. His not having stated this at the bar, was wholly owing, to the embarrassment occasioned by his situation.

said, that the stranger must have known he had no right to sit in the front of the gallery and there take notes. By using offensive language, and contumaciously remaining, after he was ordered to withdraw, he certainly deserved to be visited by the displeasure of the House.

was of opinion, that the prisoner had acted contumaciously, and that the House, in vindication of its privileges, ought not to suffer such conduct to pass unpunished.

suggested, as the conduct of the prisoner could not be passed over unnoticed, whether a proceeding, short of committal, that of a reprimand at the bar, would not answer every useful purpose?

being again called in,

said—this House being informed that you wish to address something to them, have directed you to be placed at the bar.

said:—"I am not conscious of having offered the slightest offence, or the smallest disrespect to the House, by any word or deed of mine this evening. I declare with sincerity, that, if I have been betrayed into any hasty expression, of which I have no recollection, I am sorry for it.—At the time the circumstance occurred, my mind was engaged in the most intense application to the individual who was then addressing the House, and whose sentiments I was most anxious to take down correctly. At this conjuncture I was interrupted, and God knows what might have escaped me! But I am not conscious of having said any thing offensive. If I have done so, I am

†

sorry for it—but I again say I have no recollection of it."

said, the prisoner having expressed his contrition for any thing that might have inadvertently fallen from him in the warmth of the moment, and having declared that he meant no disrespect either to the House or to its officer, it would perhaps be sufficient, if he were called in and reprimanded. The noble lord then moved, "That Peter Finnerty be brought to the Bar, in order to his being reprimanded and discharged."

was accordingly brought to the Bar, where he received a Reprimand from Mr. Speaker, and was ordered to be discharged out of custody, paying his Fees. The Reprimand was as follows: "Peter Finnerty; Anxious as this House always is, to measure the infliction of its punishment by the extent of the offence, it is no less anxious to show all the lenity that is consistent with justice and the maintenance of its own dignity. It would have been impossible for the House, under the Complaint brought before their notice, not to have visited this offence with the severest punishment, had they not been satisfied, from the explanation you have offered, that, whatever that offence was, it was involuntarily committed. Under all these circumstances, the House has directed that you be now reprimanded; and it may be well to warn both you and others, that, whilst they are availing themselves of the indulgence of the House, they should be most cautious not to abuse it. I have now to inform you, that you are discharged upon the payment of your fees."

said, he was extremely sorry, after the time of the House had been so long occupied with discussions relative to breach of privilege, to be obliged to request their attention to another instance of the same kind. The breach of privilege which he was now about to notice was contained in an article which had appeared in "The New Times" newspaper, and had been adverted to in the course of a former debate. It was of such a nature that he thought it was quite impossible for the House to pass over it without being guilty of a dereliction of duty. The publication in question contained a series of remarks on the speech delivered a few evenings since, by an hon. member (sir J, Mackintosh), and were of such a nature as called for the severest censure of the House.—[The hon. gentleman here read extracts from the publication complained of. It was in the form of a letter to the editor, and contained a number of scurrilous observations on the speech delivered by sir J. Mackintosh on the Foreign Enlistment Bill, on the 10th instant. The writer expressed his surprise that cheers and thunders of applause should have awaited the accusations of sir James against his majesty's government, as the subservient supporters of a tyrannical system. Was sir James (asked the writer) always of the same opinion? Was he the same sort of man in 1808? Did he not then basely surrender the hope, the chance of establishing rational freedom? Was he not ready to submit to the tyranny of Buonaparté? He wondered that such men should now dare to reflect on ministers. If he were to believe newspaper reports, those scandalous and impudent observations of the old upholder of Gallic principles were loudly applauded, &c]—Now, really (said Mr. Wynn), if such observations are allowed to be published without notice, the daily press is our master. We must not complain of these daily comments, but court the favour of those who indulge in them. If we suffer such remarks, believe me we open the door to the worst and most dangerous species of influence. The article was read by the clerk; after which Mr. Wynn moved, "That A. Mitchell, the printer and publisher of the said paper, do attend the House this day."

said, he looked upon this attack, as he trusted that he should upon all others which might be preferred against him on similar authority, with the most perfect indifference. As far as related to himself, he hoped never to see his name joined with any question of privilege. If the House should think it requisite, for the defence of its own dignity, to call the printer to their bar, he hoped they would punish the offence with as much lenity as they possibly could. With respect to the truth of the charge which had been brought against him, he must say, that the individual, who had invented it, had betrayed the grosesst ignorance of his conduct. At the time he [the writer of the letter] had represented him as playing the part of a sycophant to Buonapartè, he was administering justice in the East Indies.

said, that though the letter in question was most undoubtedly a libel on the character of his hon. and learned friend, it was a libel of such a nature as could not possibly do it any harm. He should, therefore, take the sense of the House, whether it was or was not a breach of privilege. The falsest part of the libel had evidently nothing to do with any question of privilege, as it referred to the conduct of his hon. and learned friend before he had become a member of that House. It would be not merely a gross libel on his hon. friend, but also an infraction of the privileges of the House, to state positively that any member had brought forward false and impudent accusations; but this was not stated in the newspaper complained of; the writer had merely stated, that, if he were to judge of the reports in the newspapers, sir J. Mackintosh had brought forward false and impudent accusations. He thought that the best plan which the House could pursue, would be for some member to move that the writing of these comments was a breach of privilege. He had stood up in the defence of the newspaper in question from a feeling of justice, and because he thought that the purity of his hon. and learned friend's character could be impaired by such imbecile, attacks as the present.

could not help thinking that there might be some doubt whether this letter was or was not a breach of privilege. If the charge were a libel at all, the latter part of it was most grossly libellous, not merely on his hon. friend, but also on the House, as it charged the House with receiving false and shameless not accusations with the loudest applause and approbation.

thought, that the breach of privilege was so evident as not to require the passing of any such resolution as the hon. gentleman had proposed. He could not conceive any grosser infraction of their privileges than to say of any hon. member that the statements which he made to the House were false and impudent assertions. How could the House expect to stand well in the esteem of the public, if the discussions which were carried on within it were to be published with such comments as those of which he complained? He agreed with the general feeling of the House in the advantages resulting from their publication; but if they were to be given with such comments as were now used, the shutting of the gallery altogether, though it might be an evil, would be a less evil than the continuance of the present system. That system had grown to its present height, because each individual, standing upon the strength of his own character, had failed to complain of, nay, even to notice it. He had brought forward this question, not with any view to protect the character of his hon. friend, but with a view to maintain the dignity of the House and the security of the public.

thought, that as some degree of warmth had been excited in the House by the discussion which had incidentally arisen in the course of the evening, and as the present was a subject on which they ought to decide with calmness and deliberation, he should suggest to the hon. gentleman the propriety of deferring it till to-morrow.

said, that though he did not entertain the slightest doubt on the question himself, he could not have any objection to withdraw his complaint that night, if he was allowed to bring it forward to-morrow.