jured the house not to make this a matter of all that licence that the house has ever of such consequence. He thought a bare allowed to discussions upon its proceedreprimand would answer every fair pur-ings out of doors. Sir, I have read this pose in view. article, and I must certainly allow that The Speaker suggested, that the original it is a very severe libel. But when I say motion should first be disposed of, and this, I must at the same time observe, then the house could more readily deter- that though in itself it is extremely immine what course was to be followed. proper, yet when compared with a vast Mr. Windham said, he was not inclined variety of other articles that have appeared to press the matter further, if the house respecting the proceedings of the house, really appeared to agree with the argu- it is by no means so severe. Indeed, in ments and proposition of the hon. gent. this view, it may be said to be mere milk who had just sat down. He should wish and water. But then, my hon. friend to know, whether that hou. gent. who had says, "if we are to allow things of this just sat down was disposed to do that, in sort to go on, where are we to stop? Is regard to his own person, which he seemed the house of commons to suffer every sort inclined to do towards the house of com-of censure on its proceedings to pass withmons. Did he (Mr. Wright) mean to say, out any animadversion?" Why, sir, to that he would despise every thing that this I reply, that if the house is about to could be said against him? Really, for adopt a new feeling, and to take notice his part, he could see no reason why mem- of expressions of this sort, after they have bers ought to be more tender of their own so long slumbered, and allowed these things characters, as individuals, than they should to pass unheeded, it ought to give warning be of the character of the house of com- that it has changed its sentiments, in order mons. The not being equally attentive that people may be prepared, and that the character of the house was saying punishment may not fall on a particular to the public, "You may say what you individual, where so many are involved please, we do not mind it." If such was in the same sort of delinquency. I do the rule, why not proclaim it? Why not not say that my hon. friend is not persay to the writers of newspapers, you may fectly warranted in the mode of proceedwrite what you choose, there will be no ing which he has adopted; but it is but injury done by your misrepresentations? fair at the same time to observe, that the Was it to be said, that, because the house house has been long in the habit of tolehad passed over a great many instances of rating such paragraphs as that of which a similar nature, we ought on that account complaint is now made. We are accusto pass over every one? This would be tomed to connive at these things. We false logic. The freedom of the press had connive at reporting our debates, and very been too long tolerated, not only to the properly, because I should consider it as injury of public, but private men-not a great, if not a mortal blow to the liberonly to the general degradation of the ties of this country, that the public should higher orders of society, but to the general be kept in ignorance of the proceedings corruption of the lower. The only ques- in parliament. Now, it ought to be retion was, whether the instance now before collected, that we use a great deal more the house was one which went to that ex-freedom with our own characters than we cess as should lead them to interfere to think it just that other men should do. maintain their own dignity. It was impossible, in his opinion, to conceive any thing more gross, injurious, calumnious, and licentious, and therefore he should be guilty of no great vindictive principle, if he should vote for punishing the offender in a certain degree, as a caution to others.

Mr. Sheridan.-Although, sir, no person feels more highly than I do the respect that is due to this house, yet, on this occasion, I certainly do not think that we ought to be too eager in taking notice of this paragraph. My hon. friend has said, that this has overstepped the boundaries

But when people are obliged to report, if they do report well, the severe thing which we say of one another in this house, is it not natural that they should fall into an imitation of our style, and speak of us in some measure, as we do of ourselves? do therefore think, that in these cases a great allowance ought to be made. I should be extremely sorry that any thing like a prosecution should take place in this in. stance. My first reason is, that I am a warm friend to the liberty of the press and the second is, that I very well remem ber the usual result of such prosecutions

his friend, and equally to the perfect purity of intention in the jury he addressed.

Mr. Canning said, the conclusion of his right hon. friend was perfectly consistent with the premises.

The Attorney-General said, he supposed we might then, have acquitted libellers, though we were not allowed to talk of

I recollect, sir, that a certain libel was some time ago published on the house of commons, and I was one of a committee appointed to discover the author of that pamphlet. I certainly had no doubt that it was a libel; however, when it came into a court of law, an hon. friend of mine had the ingenuity to persuade the jury, that it was no reflection whatever on the house" acquitted felons." of commons. If, therefore, the author of Mr. For.-Sir, it has never been my opithis paragraph makes an ample apology,nion, and I think my conduct has pretty which I have no doubt he will be ready to well shewn it, that the liberty of the press do, I cannot think that the matter ought should be rashly meddled with. But, howto be carried farther. It will be suffi- ever, when a gross breach of privilege is cient to have him reprimanded and dis. committed, it is not perhaps altogether. charged. proper that the offender should escape with The Chancellor of the Exchequer.—When impunity. Some allusion has been made this motion was first brought forward, I to a prosecution by the attorney-general. certainly wished that the hon. gent. should It does not appear to me that this is the pause upon it. Now, however, it does just mode of proceeding on a case of this stand in a very different situation from nature. No court of justice ever, or at least what it did before. However, therefore, very seldom, adopts the plan of a proseI might be disposed to pass over the pa-cution in the case of a contempt of court, ragraph which is now the subject of ani- but almost invariably proceeds by taking madversion, I cannot, in consistency with the punishment into its own hands. In a my duty, allow it to be passed slightly libel on the house of commons, therefore, over, since it has been taken notice of. At the person who has written it ought more the same time I agree very much in what properly to be punished by this house, and has been said by an hon. gent. over against it certainly is by no means advisable, that me (Mr. Sheridan), that these things should he should be sent to such a mode of trial not rashly be taken up,-and yesterday as has been alluded to, without strong I adverted to this circumstance. If this grounds for so doing. But let me not, at has been tolerated long, I am certainlyof opi- the same time, be misunderstood. I am nion that it is not altogether candid that one by no means disposed to favour the disindividual should be selected for the pur-position to turn matters into contempt pose of punishment. I would only remark, of court, which are in fact crimes of enhowever, that the hon. gent, in his zeal to defend the press, in the present instance, has so far forgot himself, as to undervalue the trial by jury; a thing no less sacred in this constitution than the house of commons. His argument went thus far, that it was needless to commit the matter to a jury, as they would not give a proper verdict in the case. With regard, however, to the question, whether this ought to be sent to a jury or not, the most proper time to consider that will be when the printer has been called in, and his apology heard. We shall hear in the first place what he has to say in his own defence, and then we may consider what will be the just and fair mode of proceeding.

Mr. Sheridan said, he could not easily be caught addressing the house in disrespectful language of an English jury. The construction just given to his remark was not correct; in what he had said, he designed to do justice to the talents of

tirely a different nature. In this instance, however, it is clear that the offence resem、 bles that of a contempt of court, and as such it ought to be punished by this house, and by no other. I have certainly not often thought it fit to prosecute individuals, But at the same time I must say, that the gentlemen on the other side have not been remarkable for their forbearance in any case where government has been concerned, I do not, therefore, see why the house of commons should be the only part of the constitutional body that is to be libelled with impunity. I widely differ from my hon. friend, when he says that such a paragraph as this appears almost every day. Undoubtedly I am not in the habit of reading the newspapers so much as he does, but I certainly have scarcely ever seen any thing like this. I defy any gentleman to shew me any such paragraph, There are, indeed, often attacks on individuals, that, strictly speaking, are whole

ly unjustifiable, but I say, that if such an imputation as this had been thrown on any of the proceedings of the house of commons, when the majority was in favour of administration, it would not be tolerated. No one would dare to do such a thing. I certainly do think this, therefore, an extraordinary case; but at the same time, on the general principle, that the freedom of discussion, either in or out of doors, should not be discouraged, I am free to confess, that I am not of opinion that the punishment ought to be severe.

listened to the arguments on both sides? Certainly this cannot be said. This may be a reason for taking notice of the libel, but at the same time it must be confessed, it is an additional proof that it could be attended with no harm whatever.

Dr. Laurence differed from the hon. gent, who had just sat down, on the nature and effects of a libel. The hon. gent. said, that when a libel was not in unison with the feelings of the public, it ought to be disregarded. By parity of reasoning, it followed, that when a libel was in unison Mr. William Smith.-Nothing, sir, in my with the public feeling, it ought to be taken opinion, can be more serious than a libel notice of. There was something in this directed against an individual. It very that distinguished it from other libels. The often does him incalculable injury, because house sat rather in a judicial capacity. it goes into a thousand places where it is This was no political question, and thereabsolutely impossible for him to follow it. fore the libel was the more intolerable. But, sir, I really think that a libel on the The house had on this occasion done every house of commons stands upon very dif- thing with coolness, and no passion or ferent grounds; paragraphs of this sort, party feeling was concerned. Ile entered when they are not in unison with the pub. his protest against the distinction that had lic feeling, are of little importance. This been made by the hon. gent. for if this was libel, sir, is certainly out of all unison with to be allowed, a door would be opened to the public feeling, and therefore, in my the most scandalous attacks on the house opinion, it is perfectly harmless. This is of commons, when it was found that they certainly not the case when a libel is pub-might be circulated with impunity. lished on the conduct of a member of the The question being loudly called for, house, and this, therefore, ought to be a and the house having determined" that more serious consideration. We ought to the Printer be called in," Mr. Peter Stuart be more careful of protecting individuals appeared at the bar. from such attacks, because when the house, The Speaker.-Q. What is your name? in a collective sense, acts with the public, A. Peter Stuart.-Q. Look at that paper: all libels on their conduct can be attended is it printed and published by you? A. It is. with no mischievous effects, even though The Speaker. That paper has been comthey should be more gross, if any thing plained of to the house as containing lican be more gross, than the libel in ques-bellous reflections on its conduct and chation. I do not, therefore, think, that it racter. What have you to say in answer was material to notice it; but whether to the charge?

66

any proceedings should be had upon it, A. "Permit me, sir, to assure you, that after it has been noticed, is another ques- "I very much regret that any part of the tion entirely, I am rather disposed to" contents of my paper of yesterday should agree with the right hon. gent. on the other" have incurred the displeasure of this hoside, that something should certainly be" nourable house. If, sir, I have expressed done by way of marking the displeasure myself too warmly in favour of lord Melof the house. But I must advert to one "ville for whom I shall always entertain thing, We are here accused of haste, in-" the highest respect and esteem-I beg temperance, &c. Now, sir, how did we "that this honourable house will view it as proceed? You gave the vote that de-" the unguarded language of the heart, and cided the matter, and therefore this is" not a wilful intention to provoke the more particularly a libel upon you you censure of a power on which our dearest whom we all respect, and whom certainly" rights and liberties depend. I intreat it becomes us all to protect from any im-" you, sir, that some allowance may be proper imputations. This case, therefore," made for that freedom of discussion of does undoubtedly differ from any other" public affairs, which for a long series of very materially. Can it be supposed, sir, years has been sanctioned by common that you were actuated by intemperance, usage; and that the hasty composition or gave your vote in haste, after you had" of a newspaper may not be considered

66

66

"as a deliberate design to offend this ho"nourable house." Mr. Peter Stuart having concluded, he was desired by the Speaker to withdraw.

Mr. Grey then rose.-Sir, it is now my duty to submit a resolution to the house on this business. This I shall do without premising it with any observations. Of the sort of apology that has been made, if apology it can be called, I leave the house to judge, and I shall be perfectly satisfied with their decision, whatever it may be. I wish, however, to make one observation with regard to the charge that has been thrown out against me by a gentleman on the other side, of having been too hasty in bringing forward this business. Sir, I brought it forward as soon as the offence came before the public, and as soon as it was generally known, and this I thought to be the most proper period. Having said this, sir, I shall only move "That Peter Stuart, in publishing the said paper, has been guilty of a high breach of the privileges of this house."

every thing that was just and proper that there was no use whatever in attending in it, and that it afforded no protection whatever to the people of this country; and I remember too, that the hon. gent. was absent from his duty in the house at the time. Yet, sir, I do not say that the hon. gent. absolutely held this language; but I do say, that the prints made him say so, and adopted that mode of conveying their sentiments with more weight. But after all this, sir, there was no interference on the part of the house. I only mention this, sir, to shew, that those things which make for us do not make altogether so strong an impression, as those things that make against us. With regard to the motion itself, I certainly have no objection to it.

Mr. For. The hon. and learned gent. has, I suppose, alluded to me in what he has just said. He has stated that a certain print published observations purporting to come from me. When he produces the paper to me, I may perhaps recollect what I said, so far as to give him information whether the observations came from me, and how far they were accurate. I am not ashamed of what I said, and, if the hon. gent. wishes for information on the

The Attorney-General.—I do not mean to object to the motion that has just been made. But with regard to the observation to which the hon. gent. alluded, as coming from a person on this side of the house, I rather think the hon. gent. spoke of some-subject, he has only to produce the paper thing that fell from me on a former night. containing the remarks to which he has I believe the hon. gent. wishes now that he adverted. That a man may say that it is had attended to what I suggested on that of no use that he should attend the house, occasion. I stated, that I had no doubt because he can do no service in it, without that this came under the description of a being guilty of a libel, I should think inlibel, and I think so still; but I also said, controvertible. I did say so, and that was that it did not appear to me that the house my opinion most certainly. If he thought ought to interfere in the business. This this a libel like the paper now before us, is still my opinion. Many things come if he had shewn me the print in question before me which I cannot hesitate to pro- at that time, I could have told him how Bounce libels; but from the circumstances far it was accurate. It may not, perhaps, that attend such cases, I should not advise be such an easy matter now; but, how that any notice should be taken of them. ever, even at this distance of time, I have And I must say, that the eagerness with no objection to give him every information which the hon. gent. and his friends have in my power; and I believe I can still, taken up this paragraph savours much from recollection, satisfy him on this sub. more of the irritability of soreness than of ject. But, sir, I must confess I do not see any soundness of character on their part. the justice or the candour of withholding An hon. gent. over the way said, that he all allusion to the affair at the time when had great difficulty in finding any other it happened, and bringing it forward as an libel similar to the present one. Sir, libels argumentum ad hominem, when such a libel do not make such lasting or strong im-as this is before the house. I certainly do pressions in other cases as they do when they are directed against ourselves. This may have been the case at present. I recollect, sir, when public prints made that hon. gent, state, at clubs and meetings, that the house of commons was so lost to

think this a more serious libel than many others, and confess that it has made a stronger impression on me for exactly the reason that has been stated, of its not being in favour of my own side of the question; not however, because I am myself indivi

dually concerned, but because I think that taken into the custody of the serjeant at libels are much more serious when they arms. are most agreeable to the executive power; for, in that case, there are strong suspicions that they may possibly come from those who receive the pay of the goverment. Mr. Atkins Wright defended the sentiments which he had formerly expressed, but spoke so low, that we could not follow him in the particulars.-The motion was then put, and carried without a division. Mr. Atkins Wright then moved, "that Mr. P. Stuart be called to the bar, reprimanded, and discharged."

[PAPERS RELATING TO THE SALE OF CORN AND FLOUR BY MR. CLAUDE. SCOTT.] Mr. Serjeant Best rose, pursuant to notice, to call the attention of the house to a transaction, which, if the circumstances were as had been stated to him, deserved the serious attention of the house. In 1795, government had thought proper to give orders to seize neutral vessels going to France with provisions. These vessels and the cargoes had been consigned, after a part of the provisions had been taken for the use of government, with the remaining cargoes to Mr. Claude Scott, to be disposed of for the public account. He was inform

Mr. Grey observed, that if it was the general sense of the house that a libel of this nature should be passed over in this manner, he had no objection to the mo-ed that the produce of the sale, amounting tion. He was of opinion, however, that to two hundred thousand pounds, had been when the house interfered, its sentence suffered to remain in the hands of Mr. ought to be something heavy. The para- Scott, down to the year 1800. During this graph in question had been voted a high period, Mr. Scott had frequently supplied breach of privilege by the house, and the government with corn to a large amount, author ought therefore to meet with some which there was reason to suppose he had marks of the displeasure of the house. bought with the public money, and for However, he should be sorry to urge any which he was paid in treasury bills, bear, greater severity than the house thought ing interest, so that he not only derived necessary; and he would therefore be per- mercantile profit from the public money, fectly satisfied with whatever the house but also interest from the mode of payjudged proper. If, then, the house, after ment. If these things were true, they were hearing the apology that had been made, if it was an apology, should think it proper to agree to the motion, he had no objec

tion.

highly culpable: the person who had given him the information pledged himself to make good the fact at the bar; yet he hoped sincerely the hon. gent. could do away the charge. He concluded with moving for a variety of accounts relating to the sale of the vessels and cargoes, the payments made to the lords of the treasury, and the several contracts between Mr. Scott and government for meal and flour, &c.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was sorry, that in this instance he should be compelled to propose a greater degree of severity than what had been mentioned; but he felt that he should not have done his duty to the house, if he allowed the matter to rest here. However much thereMr. Claude Scott stated, that the money fore he might be disposed to lenity, as far was much more than 200,000/, which was as the individual was concerned, yet he one proof that the hon. gent. was extremecould not forget what was due to the dig-ly misinformed on the subject. The pro nity of the house. After having once resolved that a person had been guilty of a high breach of privilege, he could not, in consistency with the dignity of the house be instantly discharged. He thought therefore, that in the first instance, the author of the paragraph should be committed, and then, if he made a proper submission, as he had no doubt he would, he should consent to discharge him at the earliest possible period. He then moved, "that the said Peter Stuart be for his said offence taken into the custody of the serjeant at arms." The motion was agreed to, and Mr. P. Stuart was immediately

duce of the sale had been paid by him to the bank, and remained therefore unemployed. He offered to give it to government, but was told by Mr. Rose, that it was not settled to what particular account it was to go, but that as soon as this was settled he would be informed of it. The money for some months lay in the bank, and then upon an order from the treasury, he paid it over to the treasurer of the navy, and this was the whole of the matter.

Mr. Rose said, he did not believe that the hon. member, whose conduct was the object of the motion, had employed the public money for any length of time what