been guilty of it has uniformly been a supporter of administration, and of all those majorities which could be supposed to be procured by the influence of the minister, and that he had before been in the habit of only libelling those minorities which opposed the wishes of ministers.

that opinion should also dislike the statement of it in the petition. That opinion was, however, entirely agreeable to the opinion which had for many years been entertained by a great majority of that house, and of the other house of parliament, and although the petitioner might have thought his testiThe Chancellor of the Exchequer could mony of much more importance than it not well understand the conclusion drawn really was, both with respect to lord Melby the hon. gent. from the topic he had last ville and to the speaker of that house, yet stated. If the petitioner had stated gene- he could not see any thing improper or inrally, that he had been in the habit of sup- sulting to the house in his introducing those porting administration, or any set of mini- topics in extenuation of his offence. It was sters, that would certainly have been no- in the recollection of the house, that on the thing to urge in vindication or extenuation day that this business was first brought forof the offence which drew upon him the ward, considerable stress had been laid on displeasure and punishment of the house; the majority having been formed by the but when it was recollected, that it was for decision of the speaker, and therefore the a libel on the house of commons that he libelling the majority under such circumhad been ordered into custody, it was un- stances, was an aggravated offence, as condoubtedly a topic of extenuation of the of- veying a personal libel on the character of fence to alledge, that so far from being in the the speaker, whose vote made the majority. habit of libelling them, he had always before When this had been relied upon at the time supported, as much as in him lay, the reso- the libel was complained of, it was not exJutions and decisions of the house of com-traordinary that the petitioner should posimons. He must allow, however, that the language and tone of the petition were not exactly what would have appeared to him the most proper. It was not, however, with this petitioner alone, but it appeared to him a common fault with almost all who were connected with the press, that they assumed a loftier stile, and gave themselves something more of importance, than appeared naturally to belong to them. As to the danger of the times, in which the petitioner alledges that he has supported the house of commons, in that he was fully borne out by the high authority of the right hon. gent. (Mr. Windham) who had frequently and very forcibly described those dangers in that house; and who, as well as the petitioner, had often attributed to that administration of which lord Melville formed a part, the salvation of the country. This opinion was not singular: it had been for many years the prevailing opinion of both houses of parliament, and of a considerable portion of the people of this country. If in common with them the petitioner had felt the importance of the services that had been rendered to the public by lord Melville, and those with whom he acted, it was certainly competent to him to state this circumstance in his vindication. He had stated the ground of his partiality to lord Melville to proceed from his opinion of the great services he had performed; it was therefore not surprising that those who do not relish VOL. IV.

tively disclaim every idea of reflecting upon the speaker, and take that opportunity of expressing his respect for his character. For his part, it appeared to him that the decision of the majority of the house of commons should at all times be treated with the greatest respect; but certainly it did not appear to him to be entitled to more respect for having been obtained by the casting vote of the speaker than those decisions which are agreed to, either unanimously, or by very large majorities of the house. The only topics then which were objected to in the petition, were those expressions with respect to the speaker which appeared very naturally to have been introduced in consequence of his having been supposed to have libelled the speaker, and his professions of respect for lord Melville's services, which were urged in extenuation of the zeal with which he undertook to defend his character. All the rest of the petition was merely the expression of sorrow and contrition for having offended the house, and this part certainly could not be objected to,

Mr. Windham begged the house would observe how small a part of this petition was taken up with expressions of sorrow and contrition in comparison to what had been allotted to the other topics. It certainly could not be supposed that he disagreed altogether from the opinions stated in those topics, and more particularly in that one which was complimentary to the speak2 N

1

er. His objection was not to the obser- tions in aggravation, which he now convation itself, but the time and place in which ceived that he had a right to make. He it appeared. It was not the commentary should therefore now state, that gross and and the criticism itself which he found fault enormous as he conceived the libel to be with; they might be very good, but non which he had submitted to the consideration erat hic locus. The petition of a person of the house, it was in his opinion highly under punishment for libelling the house aggravated by the style of defiance which was not the place in which a commentary appeared throughout this petition, and which on the conduct of the speaker ought to be was highly indecent and insulting to the found. It was the complexion and charac-house. He did not exactly know what ter of the performance altogether, that made amendment to move for, but he thought it impossible to agree to the motion, and he that the punishment ought now to be intherefore intended to move an amendment.creased.

Sir William Burroughs rose to order. He thought it irregular for a member to make a second speech with a view of moving an amendment.

Mr. Canning thought the hon. member might have spared all those topics that related to the libel itself, and have confined himself to the petition which was before the house. If the hon. member who had himself brought forward this business, was con

The Speaker gave his opinion, that by the rules of the house the right hon. gent. could not make a second speech to move an amend-tent on the night he brought it forward with

ment.

ness.

t.

The

the small measure of punishment that was Mr. Grey felt extremely sorry to be obli- mentioned, or rather with the no punishged again to trouble the house on this busi- ment, it was not competent to him now to He did not know what was the pre- go back and argue that a severe punishment cise nature of the amendment intended to should be inflicted for that offence. be moved by his rt. hon. friend (Mr. Wind- hon. gent. took great credit to himself for ham) but he thought it was evident that the being so ready to comply with the suggeshouse was now placed in a situation that tion of a light punishment; he should also made it impossible to avoid passing some have given equal credit to the conduct of severer punishment than was at first thought his right hon. friend (Mr. Pitt) on that ocIf the nature of the composition which casion. Whatever feelings he might have was presented as a petition was considered, had in bringing the business forward, was it would appear to have been written alto- best known to himself; but it was most gether in a strain of defiance and accusa- clear that nothing but a sense of duty to the tion. This was the general tone of it, and house could have governed the conduct of nothing proved it more strongly than the his hon. friend on that occasion. Whatever defence of the right hon. gent. (Mr. Pitt). might be the motives of the apparent lenity Could the house countenance the petition of the very persons who complained of the of a person who placed himself in the situ- libel, it was evident that the motive of his ation of accuser of one of the parties? Was right hon. friend (Mr. Pitt) in suggesting a it not evident that the general object of the more serious punishment was, that he conpetition was to attack those who brought ceived it due to the character and dignity this business before the consideration of the of the house, and that even when he was house? He must confess it gave him very himself in a minority, he felt that the deciuneasy sensations the other night, when he sions of the majority ought to be treated heard an hon. friend of his (Mr. Sheridan) with the highest respect. As to the part of give the term of "milk and water," to what the petition which contained complimentary he conceived the grossest libel against the expressions towards the speaker, although character of the house that ever was submit- strictly speaking the petitioner was not to be ted to their consideration. It was by no supposed to know that it had been dwelt means to be considered as an animated dis-on as an aggravation of his offence that he cussion of public affairs, but a mere compo- had spoken so disrespectfully of a decision sition of unqualified abuse against the ma- which was determined by the casting vote jority of the house. It was an attack upon of the speaker, yet he did not suppose that their character as judges sitting in a court of any member could so adhere to strict forjustice; it called them intemperate, partial mality, as to censure the petitioner for mereand presumptuous. He, on the formerly answering a charge that had been made night, had left the libel to the consideration against him. Although it might, at first of the house, without making any observa-sight, appear somewhat ludicrous to hear

be deterred from giving his opinion by the indecent threat that had been thrown out by the hon. gent. who had spoken last. That gentieman had stated pretty strongly, that it was in the contemplation of his friends to curtail and abridge the liberty of the press, and wished to have it supposed that he and his friends were to be responsible for the determination on the other side of the house to abridge the real liberty of the press. He saw nothing inconsistent in the conduct of his hon. friend, (Mr. Grey) on a former night with his conduct to-night. He had on a former night given way to that disposition for lenity which he perceived to have been then the prevailing sentiment in the house; but when he now found this dispo sition towards lenity had been abused, and that the stile of the petition shewed strongly the spirit in which the libel had been written, there was no inconsistency in thinking that this lenity had been misplaced, and that some severer punishment should now take place. He confessed that he himself had used the words stated by the hon. gent. and although he gave his opinion that the paragraph alluded to was a very gross libel, yet he called it milk and water comparatively with others which had not yet been noticed. However, he must confess that some bounds ought to be set to the licentiousness of the press; yet when he considered in whose hands the pruning-knife was to be placed, to lop off its exuberances, he was much afraid they would destroy the pith and vital sap of the tree, On this ground he had hitherto opposed all those measures for restricting the freedom of the press; he had opposed all the increase of duties on those smaller publications which might at a cheap

the petitioner complimenting the private | could not give a silent vote; nor was he to character of the speaker, yet if that had been left out, and the compliment was only to his situation as presiding over this house, the omission might be complained of with more reason, and would appear to convey something of a reflection on his private character. He wished, however, now, that the editors of papers in general, not only those who conducted daily, but those who pub. lished weekly papers, should take notice, and receive warning that a great change had taken place in the system of forbearance that had hitherto been adhered to. Justice, impartial justice, must be done on both sides. A new æra had now begun, and if any general clamour should be raised with respect to the abridgment of the liberty of the press, it must be recollected by the house and the country, on which side of the house these prosecutions first commenced, and who it was who began them. As the petitioner had defended, with mistaken zeal, the man who had been the victim of the anger of that house, was it unfair for him, in extenuation, to shew the causes which had produced that zeal which drew upon him the displeasure of that house? It was certainly fair in him to point out the reason why he entertained so great a partiality for lord Melville; to state the services which that noble lord, and those with whom he acted, had rendered to the country; and it was not extraordinary, or unnatural, that any member of the community, who felt strongly that the salvation of the country, and the protection that he enjoyed in common with all his fellow subjects, was owing to the salutary laws which were then enacted, to be strongly impressed with gratitude for those services, and to undertake zealously, although imprudently, and perhaps pre-rate disseminate general and useful informasumptuously, to defend a person whom the house had condemned. As to the merits of lord Melville in those times to which the petition alludes, no resolution of the house of commons could erase that page from the history of the country, or from the recollection of the supporters of the constitution. He again repeated, that a great change had now taken place, and that the house and the country must recollect on which side of the house it had begun.

tion; he had opposed the bill which required a printer's name to be inserted on every hand-bill; but above all, he had opposed that infamous act (if he might be allowed to call any thing infamous that was still in the statute book), which allowed magistrates and courts to transport persons to Botany Bay upon the second conviction for a libel. Upon the present occasion he had himself been applied to by some friends of the petitioner, and waited on him in consequence. Having read his petition, he entreated him to leave out those passages, and

Mr. Sheridan said, that although it was peculiarly disagreeable to him to mix in any debate, when his partiality even to the ex-struck his pen across them. It appeared, cesss of liberty for the press would interfere with the opinion he would otherwise have formed, yet, on the present occasion, he

however, that after he had seen him, the petitioner took the advice of some other persons, and re-inserted those passages. Af

punish a libel on the majority of the house, appeared difficult for him to account for in any other way than he had already done, by supposing they were attached to majorities, or minorities, exactly as they themselves happened to belong to the one description or the other. Having now found a libel on a majority to include themselves, they were ready to vote for increasing the punish

ter having done so, he had, however, the most grave and serious libel. The great decency not to ask him to present his peti-zeal that some gentlemen now shewed to tion. The right hon. gent. (Mr. Pitt) had considered it as a fair set-off in the petitioner to state the former services of lord Melville; if that was any argument, why did not his lordship's defenders in the house make use of it? When the petitioner chose to state that they sat there as a parliament owing to the exertions of lord Melville and his friends, was that language which the house could endure? If it was owing to sa-ment. lutary laws, surely it was to the legislature, and not to one or two individuals, that those laws were owing. It was equally objectionable in a petition to speak of either the merits or demerits of any of the parties in parliament. If a person under punishment for a libel on the character of the house should have taken another ground, and instead of attributing the safety of the state to lord Melville and his colleagues, had attributed it solety to the firm stand which the opposition in parliament had made to all the fabricated plots and conspiracies which had been invented on the part of government, for the purpose of preserving ministers in power and office, such a statement would have been equally objectionable. A petition ought not to be so framed as to revive those topics of discussion which were not relative to the matter before the house. He felt sorry that the petition had been so worded that he could not give it his support. Upon the ground he had stated, he should find himself obliged to agree in the vote of his hon. friend.

Mr. Dent thought the petition contained no matter that could be adduced in aggravation of the original libel. It appeared to him a great inconsistency in the hon. member, (Mr. Sheridan) to give credit to the legislature for the salutary laws it had enacted, and yet give no credit to the administration who had brought them forward.

Mr. Sheridan, in explanation, said the hon. gent. had completely misunderstood him. He neither meant to give credit to those laws as salutary, nor to the government that introduced those laws.

The Attorney General thought it was a most extraordinary speech which the house had just now heard from the hon. gent. (Mr. Sheridan). His expression on the other night was a remarkable one, and would not easily be forgotten. He had described the libel as a 66 mere milk and water" production, when compared with many others, and yet this night he found out that it was a

Mr. Whitbread considered that his hon. friend (Mr. Sheridan) had properly stated the grounds from which the disposition to lenity on a former night proceeded. There were two solutions of it. In the first place, his hon. friend (Mr. Grey) had complained of a libel; the house unanimously agreed that it was a gross libel; and, under these circumstances, it was not surprising that his hon. friend (Mr. Grey) should, as usual, feel a greater disposition to lenity than the right hon. gent. (Mr. Pitt). If the fact, however, was, that it was one of the minority of the 8th of April, who both wrote that libel and drew up the petition, it was not extraordinary that that hon. member should warmly defend his own productions. The set-off in this case is curious. The editor, who is punished for libelling the majority of the house, tells you, in his vindication, that he has very frequently libelled the minority. Was it to be endured, that an editor of a newspaper should tell the house of commons that he had sat in judgment upon them and their proceedings, and pronounced his applause or his censure on the different parties in parliament as he thought fit? This set-off stated, that lord Melville had been an old and faithful servant of the crown. had, however, been proved, that for more than 16 years of the time he was in office, he had been an unfaithful servant; and that the principal object of him and his colleagues was to cling to office as long as they could. As to the party heats which prevailed at those times, they were in a great measure gone and obliterated from the page of history. The right hon. gent. himself (Mr. Pitt) had, if there was any faith in man, proposed and recommended his hon. friend (Mr. Fox) as a fit person to hold a high office in the government of the country; and, therefore, he could not have supposed that he deserved those scandalous libels which had been thrown out against his character. Without wishing for any severity of punishment to be inflicted on the present occasion,

It

he should be very glad that the hon. baronet | sition to it; he thought he should not be alwould see this petition in the same light lowed to pass with impunity. that it appeared to him in, and consent to withdraw it for the purpose of preparing another that would be more decent and seemly. The expressions in the first part of it would be sufficient to obtain the object, and the remainder had much better be omitted. He then appealed to the hon. baronet, whether it would not be better to withdraw his petition?