request. It was then agreed, that the House should again resolve itself into the committee on Monday next. Debate in the Commons on Sir Elijah Impey's Complaint of Sundry Libels published against Him.] February 8. On the order of the day being read, for taking into consideration the matter of the Complaint made yesterday at the bar by sir Elijah Impey, and for his attendance with the Papers and Pamphlet of which he then complained, sir Elijah was called in, and at the bar, delivered in to the House two newspapers, the one intituled, "The Morning Herald, Wednesday, February 6, 1788," and printed by W. Perryman, at No. 18, Catharine Street, in the Strand; the other intituled, "The Gazetteer, and New Daily Advertiser, Thursday, February 7, 1788," and printed by M. Say, at No. 10, in Ave-Maria-Lane, Ludgate-street. And sir Elijah Impey informed the House, that Mr. Debrett, the publisher of the pamphlet which he yesterday complained of to the House, had, this morning, given him assurance that the publication thereof should be immediately put a stop to; and that therefore he did not desire to persist in his complaint against the publisher of the said pamphlet. Sir Elijah having withdrawn, Mr. Grenville rose. He said, that the newspaper misrepresentations of the proceedings of that House had of late been very frequently complained of, and that possibly, unless some notice were taken of them, they would grow to such a head, that it would not be in the power of the House to stop them. He would not then discuss the wisdom or the policy of taking such measures for their prevention, as should effectually put an end to their future progress, but would just make a few observations necessary to be considered on the present occasion. It had generally been deemed most expedient for individual members of that House to pass over the freedoms daily taken with their names, and treat them with indifference. Unless in very enormous instances, a variety of reasons might be alleged in illustration of the good sense and propriety of this practice. In the first place, gentlemen had the testimony of their own consciences to support them, and while they were satisfied that they acted from good and virtuous motives, the imputation of undue motives only merited their contempt; or, if what they said was misrepresented, the mistatement could not be of long duration, as every gentleman had it in his power, in a very short time, to do himself justice in the most effectual manner. There were other obvious arguments that might reconcile individuals to the liberties taken with their names and characters; but he had great doubts, whether the same arguments would apply to the House collectively. It was of importance that the people should look up to that House with respect and confidence, and on that account, it might be extremely inexpedient ever to pass over the attempt to weaken that confidence, or diminish that respect.-But there was a third point of view in which the House could not consistently assume any discretion whatever, and that was the sort of case then under contemplation. The case of a person answering at the bar to different charges of high crimes and misdemeanors, who, while his defence was pending, had found it necessary to claim the protection of the House against the attacks of libellous writers in the newspapers, and had formally complained of two specific libels, which he had that day, exhibited, and which he had just read at the table. Having expatiated on these three distinct views of newspaper libels, affecting the proceedings of the House of Commons, and improperly interfering with them; and on the peculiar case of sir Elijah Impey, who had been sent to India thirteen years ago, in an office of great trust and confidence, and had been brought back to answer to charges, of which, if it should appear that he had been guilty, he was the greatest criminal in existence. Mr. Grenville observed, that in a few days his guilt or innocence was to be decided: he next dwelt upon the dangerous effect that a temporary libel might have upon sir Elijah's cause, and the necessity of keeping the minds of those who were to determine unbiassed and free from prejudice. Having urged this point, as well as sir Elijah's right to claim the protection of the House, Mr. Grenville proceeded to advert to the sort of punishment usually resorted to by the House, whenever it felt it necessary to exert its authority for the maintenance of its own dignity, and the defence of its privileges. That the House had an inherent constitutional right of punishing those who violated its privileges, or treated its authority with contempt, and that it made a part of the common law, no man could be ignorant. On the present occasion, however, it was not his intention to exercise the powers of the House. At a period, when the judges of the courts of law were dependent on the Crown, when the source of justice was foul and corrupt, and when the improper exercise of the prerogative was to be dreaded, that House had wisely and judiciously made use of its own power to punish those who ventured to incur its displeasure; but the times were now different, the judges had been made independent of the Crown, and had nothing to expect and nothing to dread from that quarter. The courts of law, therefore, were pure, and free from all colour of suspicion. It was, for that reason, better to have recourse to the law of the land in cases like that before them, than to the law of Parliament.-Mr. Grenville next reminded the House of the sense the Court of King's-bench had already expressed of the impropriety of publications relative to any matter in process, or likely to come to trial, by mentioning the case of the justices in Bow-street, against whom the late Mr. Wallace moved the Court for an information, for their having published accounts of the public examination of the prisoners, when the Court declared the justices were liable, because such previous publications might prejudice men upon their trial. He stated this to show, that the mode of prosecution which he proposed was that best adapted to the nature of the case, and concluded with moving, "That the said papers contain a scandalous libel, grossly reflecting on this House and the members thereof, and tending to prejudice the defence of a person answering at the bar to Articles of High Crimes and Misdemeanors against him by a member of this House." Should this motion be agreed to, he would move to address his Majesty, that he would give orders to the Attorney-general to prosecute the authors, printers, and publishers of the papers complained of in the Court of King's-bench. Mr. Fox remarked, that he could not avoid expressing his agreeable surprise to hear an argument in favour of the authority and of the privileges of that House come from the quarter from which it had proceeded. He was glad to find that those who had got into power by sinister means, who had obtained their situations in direct contempt of the confidence of the House of Commons, after they had been some time seated, thought it necessary to kick down the ladder by which they rose, and affect at least to treat the House with becoming respect, and to talk of the necessity of that House always preserving the confidence of the people. In what manner, however, had the right hon. gentleman now proposed to enforce the authority of that House? He had stated that the House of Commons possessed an inherent, constitutional right of punishing those who committed a contempt, or were guilty of a breach of its privileges. Such a right the House undoubtedly possessed, and if ever there was a case that particularly called for the exertion of it, this was the very case. He was ready to admit, that the publication complained of, was a very irregular and improper interference with the proceedings of that House. It ought, therefore, to be taken notice of: it ought to be punished. But how? Not in the way the right hon. gentleman had proposed, not by address to his Majesty, to order his Attorney-general to prosecute, but by an exertion of their own powers, and their own powers only.-Mr. Fox analysed the article complained of, and asked, if it contained any general libel on the government of the country, or any thing of a public nature, that pointed out prosecution in the court of King's-bench, as the fit and proper mode of prosecution? The whole drift and tendency of it was to interfere with the proceedings of that House, touching the defence of sir Elijah Impey. Why, then, would the House, in a case so immediately relating to its own concerns, appeal to the Crown for aid? It was a curious inconsistency for the right hon, gentleman to argue upon the constitutional powers of the House, to assert its own rights and maintain its own privileges, and then in a case of breach of privilege, and breach of privilege purely, to abandon those constitutional powers, and resort to the powers of the Crown. Mr. Fox contended that such an improper mode of prosecution led much farther than gentlemen possibly imagined, and might ultimately carry their privileges, the privi leges of the House of Commons, to be decided upon by the House of Lords! He commented on the eagerness to prosecute which had in this instance been evinced, and said, the House had not shown as much attention to its own members as they had done to sir Elijah Impey. Were not their own committees equally sacred? and yet they well knew, that libel graphs he could not see in what respect they were either libellous or scandalous. Mr. Courtenay said, that there appeared to him something extremely singular in this transaction. It had been asserted, that the honour of the House alone was to be vindicated by this prosecution. But sir Elijah Impey, when he had appeared yesterday at the bar had complained of three prints. He had, this day, produced but two, and declared himself contented with an apology for the third. It appeared, therefore, that sir Elijah was the best judge of what concerned that House; that an apology to him was the best salve for his wounded honour; and that the persons who were now to be prosecuted were only unfortunate in not knowing the placable and humane disposition of the Chief Justice. He therefore moved, “That sir Elijah Impey be again called in, and asked, whether he did not yesterday complain of another newspaper, besides those which he has now delivered in to the House?" after libel had been published against the reports of their committees, and they had all seen a bill of charges for the insertion, in a public news-paper, of a series of libels on the proceedings of that House, and on the conduct and characters of several of its members. With regard to the article at present complained of, he should hardly think that, had the argumentative part of it merely appeared, any man would have thought of moving a prosecution. The improper phrases with which it was accompanied, and the indecent comments upon the proceedings of that House undoubtedly he should not have used, nor ought they to be countenanced; but the argumentative part, that about the jurisdiction, he had no scruple to say, coincided nearly with his own opinion. He urged the necessity, in a case so pecu, liarly their own, to keep it within their own jurisdiction; and reminded the House that when once they committed the prose cution to the law courts, they had no farther command of it, and however inclined they might be to show lenity, they would not have it in their power. He asked if any person could tell him that a breach of the privileges of that House could be made a count in any information or indictment? He declared he believed that it could not, and contended against the absurdity of punishing the contempt of one court in another court, and of adopting that mode of prosecuting a complaint which was of all modes the least adapted to the nature of it. Mr. Fox also hinted at the late sentence against lord George Gordon in the court of King's-bench as being inordinately severe, and assigned that, among others, as a reason why that House should not be too eager to carry its contempts into Westminster-hall to be punished, when it was generally admitted, that they had the power of punishing them in their own hands. Mr. Jolliffe said, that the motion was highly improper, and that public animadversions were, in his opinion, exceedingly useful. Those who acted in a public capacity were objects of public observ ance; and, if they acted as became their duty, the more they were observed the more their character would be illustrated and ennobled. For his part, he never was afraid of public animadversion, and desired to have his actions watched and scrutinized. With respect to the pára * See note, p. 915. The question was put, and negatived. Mr. Courtenay said, that since the House had thought proper to reject his motion, he found himself compelled to state to them a few observations prefatory to another motion he had to make. He found that sir Elijah, having received an apology from one of the offending printers, had, in pure gentleness of disposition, withheld all desire of punishmeut. He thought it was rather unfortunate that the other printers had not made the same apology; if they had, he was convinced that they would be likewise exempted from prose. cution. He wished, therefore, to prevent their being subjects of the present motion. The mode in which he thought it might be effected was, an amendment to the present motion, to the purport of-that his Majesty might be addressed to direct his Attorney General to prosecute the said printers, unless they made the same apology as the other had done. Mr. Burke contended that the selection which appeared in the present instance, was made with so partial a hand as to be evident to all so evident that it must strike a thinking public with doubts, which might probably, at a future period, have no small influence on the minds of a jury. He could not coincide with Mr. Fox in his feelings concerning this vindication of the privileges of Parliament. He thought, on the contrary, that those who had overlooked them so long, had acted with con sistency, when, in the instant they had pretended to vindicate them, they declared their readiness to transfer the task to other hands. They, good men, did not wish to hold a rod so coercive; their wish was volentes per populos dare jura,' and in charity they resigned the power as soon as it had been asserted. The reason assigned for this conduct, however, was somewhat unfortunate; it was, that the judges of the inferior courts were at present to be relied on for their probity and independence; but if Parliament on a future occasion should be inclined again to exert their own power, would not the reverse of their present opinion be implied from such conduct? and would it not be inferred, that the judges at such period were of course corrupt and servile? An hon. gentleman had said, with as much truth as pleasantry, that sir Elijah Impey was made conservator of the honour of that House; punishment and forgiveness followed his will, and the Commons of England were, in fact, acting instrumentally according to his pleasure: he had shielded one printer by his influence, and the culprit was forgiven: he had complained against two others, and they were to be prosecuted. How reconcilable this conduct was to decency, a judging world would determine. As to the Morning Herald, it was, however inauspicious the simile might appear, now in the situation of the unfortunate Nundcomar. Whilst that miserable victim was of use in detecting ordinary offenders, and whilst petty guilt was his object, his trespasses had full impunity; but when once he took a higher aim; when he struck at the lordliness of corruption, he was instantly selected as the object of vengeance. But, leaving allusions, if there was guilt in the publication in question, why should it fall under a partial stroke? Why not subject the business to a general inquiry? Too glaring a partiality might be productive of disagreeable effects. These could be best pointed out by the gentlemen of the long robe, who, for what reason he could not divine, attended in crowds on the present trial, though on that of Mr. Hastings there was scarce a legal band to be seen, nor a legal opinion to be had. He, for his part could not think it becoming in Parliament to transfer their power to other hands, and yet retain the odium, perhaps of too severe a judgment. He was free to suppose a circumstance which had lately oc curred; for there were many who were of opinion that the judgment which lately passed on a noble lord, though it was for a libel on the Queen of France, was by much too severe; and even the gallantry of that nation, he understood was of the same opinion. It was impossible for any gentleman to sit down to his breakfast table, without meeting abuse infinitely more violent and more offensive than any thing contained in the papers now before the House: and with how little propriety could they pass over the grossest calumnies, to select that which was only to be condemned for its violation of forms. It was also to be recollected, that the learned judge in question had a particular mode of arguing;-it had been a part of his defence, that because a paper had been burnt as a libel, which condemned some part of his conduct, therefore, every part was totally free from blame. He might with equal justice infer, that if the present publication, however just in its assertion and tendency, were punished as a libel, his proceedings were de facto justified, and the purity of his conduct unquestionably established. Mr. Pitt observed, that notwithstanding the length to which the debate had been protracted, there did not appear to be any material objection to the present motion. The arguments urged from the other side of the House, arose chiefly from a misconception of the principles laid down by his right hon. friend. No man could question the undoubted right of that House to assert their own privileges, and to punish those who should dare to infringe upon them; and he contended that no mode could be adopted more constitutional, than that now suggested. It was, indeed, true, that in times of notorious corruption, when the sources of justice were manifestly vitiated, and the Crown exercised an unlawful authority over the courts of law, the House found it expedient to take cognizance of those breaches of privilege, and to do themselves justice; but the more frequent, as well as the most advisable and constitutional method was that proposed by his right hon. friend. No man respected the privileges of that House more than he did, or would go farther to vindicate them; but he always thought that where a remedy may be obtained by common law, and in the ordinary course, it was not pru. dent to resort to extraordinary means; and such he must consider that to be which was insisted on by gentlemen on the other side; cases had occurred in which the House had committed them, the House was called upon to punish, and selves upon the very same ground with those of which sir Elijah had complained that now so much insisted on, and in which on Thursday, but which he thought proper they found themselves not a little embar- to retract; the latter, he said, was a rassed how to act. He was ready to con- pamphlet, in which there did not appear fess, that he did not know of any power to be any attack upon that House, either with which that House was invested to collectively or individually. It affected compel the attendance of any of those sir Elijah alone, and when he declared parties, supposing they thought proper to himself satisfied, he did not see how the refuse to appear. The libel was generally House could proceed farther in the busiacknowledged to be very gross; nor was ness. Far otherwise was the situation of there any difference of sentiment, but in the other two; because nothing could in the most expedient mode of punishing his opinion be a more flagrant breach of those that were guilty of it. He could the undoubted inherent privileges of the not, however, but remark, that it appeared House, and nothing more deserving of its a little extraordinary in the same persons censure and animadversion. who agreed in the condemnation of it, to adopt and sanctify the most obnoxious parts in their speeches in that House. On this occasion, they even went farther, and would fain deny all protection to the gentleman who appeared at their bar in a predicament, which of all others, entitled him to it the most. That protection he would most undoubtedly feel disposed to extend towards him, as far as a sense of justice, and his duty as a member of parliament required. By those parts of a paragraph which affected himself personally, he trusted that no gentleman would suppose he was at all influenced. He disregarded every thing of the kind so entirely, that he would not give it a moment's consideration. That was no reason, however, why he should not enforce what he conceived to be justice to the dignity and authority of the House, as well as to the individual who had exhibited the complaint. With respect to the support which he was supposed to receive from professional gentlemen, particularly those connected with government in that House, he must reprobate such insinuations as unjust, unbecoming, and calumnious. Their attendance on the occasion had been censured; but it must look a little extraordinary if they were not particularly vigilant and attentive, when the subject under discussion was an inquiry into the conduct of a person who was accused of having misconducted himself in an office of high judicial eminence and authority, of having misconstrued the acts of parliament under which he was bound to act, and of having grossly violated his duty in his judicial determinations under those acts. Thus much he thought himself bound to state, reluctant as he was, to occupy the attention of the House upon such a subject. He explained the distinction between those libels which Mr. Fox claimed the indulgence of the House, whilst he explained himself upon some of the points which had been advanced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. And first, he felt it his duty to repel the imputation which had been cast on him and on his friends who had espoused his side of the question. He trusted that no man, who was at all acquainted with his sentiments or character, would be induced to believe that he was a friend to libels or libellers. What he had thrown out with respect to the article in question bore no such appearance, and he would repeat, that on a review of the numerous paragraphs of a personal and libellous nature, with which the press teemed every day, that would be found one of the least obnoxious, nor did he condemn it any farther than as it interfered with the proceedings of the House. With respect to the doctrine laid down, he thought it perfectly fair and rational, and the reasoning perfectly just. Thus far he adopted it, but he begged it might be fully understood he did not hold the opinion, that because members in that House might not only with propriety and strict regard to their duty, hold certain language, and declare certain sentiments upon any topic under their consideration, the public prints were warranted in giving them to the world at large. The freedom of speech he considered as the first and most essential privilege of parliament, inseparable from its dignity and well-being, and he could easily imagine many cases in which it would be a gross libel and breach of privilege in a newspaper, to publish such words as he might find it necessary to make use of in his place. Still, he continued of the same mind as to the mode of proceeding which the House ought to adopt on the present occasion. He thought that as the article |