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

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

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 The Attorney-General said, he supposed a court of law, an hon. friend of mine had we might then, have acquitted libellers, the ingenuity to persuade the jury, that it though we were not allowed to talk of 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 sulli-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 certainly of opi- the same time, be misunderstood. I am mon 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. Ilis 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.

tirely a different nature. In this instance, however, it is clear that the offence resembles 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 Mr. Sheridan said, he could not easily reading the newspapers so much as he be caught addressing the house in dis- does, but I certainly have scarcely ever respectful language of an English jury.seen any thing like this. I defy any gen-. The construction just given to his remark tleman to shew me any such paragraph, was not correct; in what he had said,There are, indeed, often attacks on indibe designed to do justice to the talents of viduals, that, strictly speaking, are whol

ly unjustifiable, but I say, that if such an listened to the arguments on both sides? imputation as this had been thrown on any Certainly this cannot be said. This may of the proceedings of the house of com-be a reason for taking notice of the libel, mons, when the majority was in favour of but at the same time it must be confessed, administration, it would not be tolerated. it is an additional proof that it could be No one would dare to do such a thing. I attended with no harm whatever. 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.

The question being loudly called for, and the house having determined" that the Printer be called in," Mr. Peter Stuart appeared at the bar.

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. He 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 commous, 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 house, and this, therefore, ought to be a more serious consideration. We ought to be more careful of protecting individuals 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? 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. Fox. 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 The Attorney-General.-I do not mean what I said, so far as to give him informato object to the motion that has just been tion whether the observations came from made. But with regard to the observation me, and how far they were accurate. I am to which the hon. gent. alluded, as coming not ashamed of what I said, and, if the from a person on this side of the house, I hon. gent. wishes for information on the 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 nounce 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, howthat 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 submore 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 fiuding 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 think this a more serious libel than many they are directed against ourselves. This others, and confess that it has made a may have been the case at present. I re-stronger impression on me for exactly the collect, sir, when public prints made that reason that has been stated, of its not being hon. gent. state, at clubs and meetings, in favour of my own side of the question; that the house of commons was so lost to not however, because I am myself indivi

arms.

dually concerned, but because I think that taken into the custody of the serjeant at libels are much more serious when they 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 Mr. Grey observed, that if it was the the use of government, with the remaining general sense of the house that a libel of cargoes to Mr. Claude Scott, to be disposed this nature should be passed over in this of for the public account. He was informmanner, 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 paragraph in question had been voted a high breach of privilege by the house, and the author ought therefore to meet with some marks of the displeasure of the house. However, he should be sorry to urge any greater severity than the house thought necessary; and he would therefore be perfectly satisfied with whatever the house judged proper. If, then, the house, after 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.

Scott, down to the year 1800. During this period, Mr. Scott had frequently supplied government with corn to a large amount, which there was reason to suppose he had bought with the public money, and for which he was paid in treasury bills, bearing interest, so that he not only derived mercantile profit from the public money, but also interest from the mode of payment. If these things were true, they were 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 there- Mr. Claude Scott stated, that the money fore he might be disposed to lenity, as far was much more than 200,000l. 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 pronity of the house. After having once reduce of the sale had been paid by him to solved that a person had been guilty of a the bank, and remained therefore unemhigh 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

ployed. 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

ever. He was glad the subject had been made to him; which statement, if correct, brought forward, because it would afford demanded of him this conduct as a member that hon. member an opportunity of making the whole case clear and public.

of that house; if the statement was incorrect, he was imposed upon, and improperly made the instrument of bringing forward an unnecessary enquiry, in which event he should be among the foremost to bring his

of receiving its censure; for those who gave misinformation to members on such occasions, deserved censure. He under stood the right, hon. gent. (Mr. Rose) to say, that the hon. member (Mr. Scott) had not employed the public money for one moment. He was glad to hear it, and if so, he must have been greatly misinformed.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he was desirous the papers moved for by the hon. and learned gent. should be laid before the house, but he could not help re-informant before the house, for the purpose marking the manner in which this motion was made. The hon. and learned gent. gave notice last night he should make this motion, by stating that it was applicable to the connection between government and Mr. Claude Scott, but he might have given an intimation of the ground of his motion, that those who wished to take a share in the discussion might be acquainted with the nature of the transaction, as it was intended to be brought forward; but here was a matter of ten years standing brought forward without any such intimation, when gentlemen might not have the subject fresh in their memory. He was glad to observe, however, that what had been hinted at by the hon. mover, as to the cause of his motion, was likely to turn out to be totally unfounded.

Mr. For thought the conduct of his hon. and learned friend in not giving a more descriptive notice perfectly correct, and such as he would have observed himself in a similar situation, for had he made a speech on giving his notice of the motion, it would have been irregular in any other member to answer that speech, however desirable it might be by such member that the speech should be answered. This complaint, therefore, of a want of a further intimation of the hon. mover, was properly a complaint that he had not been irregular. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he did not wish that a speech might precede the notice, but the general grounds of it would have been so far from being irregular that it would have only been conformable to custom in cases of this nature.

Mr. Rose said, he never was so absurd as to have said the hon. member naver employed the public money in his hands for a moment, for it would have been a thing impossible for any man connected with government in a contract to have that said of him; all he said was, that he had not kept the public money for any considerable time.

Mr. Serjeant Best said, a month.'

Mr. Rose said he believed not a month, or any thing like a month; but he spoke only from the best recollection he had on a subject which was ten years old; the impression of that recollection was, that the conduct of the hou. member (Mr. Scott) was perfectly correct and honourable. He knew very little more of that hon. member, beyond that contract with government, than the hon. and learned gent. did.-The question was then put and carried, "that there be laid before the house an account of such sales, delivered by Claude Scott, esq. to government, and an account when the produce of such sales were paid to government; also, that there be laid before the house a copy of an account of corn and flour, sold by the said C. Scott, esq. to government, between the year 1795, and 1800, and all monies paid by him on account of such sales; which were all or

Mr. Grey maintained, that ample information of the nature of this motion had been detailed in the notice, as entered indered." the order book, which he read.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he had not seen the book, which appeared to contain sufficient notice.

Mr. Serjeant Best justified himself as to the distinctness with which he gave notice of this motion, as also for the motive with which he brought the subject forward; it was to lay the foundation of an Enquiry. He did this on a statement which was

[IRISH LOAN.] The house having resolv editself into a committee of ways and means,

Mr. Foster said, he should only intrude upon the attention of the committee for a few minutes. It would be recollected, that early in the present session he had stated, that a loan of 1,000,000l. would be proposed to be contracted for in Ireland for the service of that country; he had also stated, that there was a sum of 800,0001.