80 



AN NIT A I. REGISTER, 1805. 



members of that house took greater 

 freedoms with each other, than they 

 •wished others to do ; but as people 

 published, in the reports, the severest 

 things they said of one another in 

 that house, was it not natural 

 that they should fall into an imita- 

 tion of their style, and speak of 

 them, in some measure, as they did 

 of themselves. He should be very 

 sorry to find any prosecution in this 

 instance, first, because he was a 

 warm friend to the liberty of the 

 press, and secondly, because he 

 knew the result of such prosecu- 

 tions. He remembered having seen 

 what they all conceived to be a libel 

 oathat house (INIr. Reeves's pamph- 

 let) sent before a court of law, and 

 there an honourable friend of his 

 had the ingenuity to persuade the 

 jury, that it contained no reflection 

 whatever on the house of commons, 

 and therefore the author made an 

 ample apology (as no doubt he 

 would) : the matter had better drop, 

 and it would be sufficent to have 

 him reprimanded and discharged. 



The Chancellor of the Ivxchequer 

 agreed, that these things should not 

 be rashly taken up, and if they had 

 been tolerated long, he certainly was 

 of opinion, that it would not be 

 candid to select one individual for 

 the purpose of punishment. As to 

 sending this matter before a jury, 

 the proper time to consider that 

 would be, after they had heard 

 what he had to say in his own de- 

 fence. 



Mr. Fox said, ht never had been 

 of opinion, and he believed his con- 

 duct had pretty well shewn it, that 

 the liberty of the press should be 

 rashly meddled with, but it was 

 not, perhaps, altogether proper, 

 that cvi'ry gross breach of privilege 

 jihould escape with impunity. As 



to the question of prosecution, this 

 case would resemble that of a con- 

 tempt of court, and should be pu- 

 nished by that house, and no other. 

 He was certain, that if such an impu- 

 tation as this had been throw^n on the 

 house of commons when tiie majo- 

 rity was in favour of the minister, it 

 would not be tolerated. Upon the 

 whole, however, on the general 

 principle, that the freedom of dis- 

 cussion, either in or out of doors, 

 ought not to be discouraged, he 

 was of opinion that his punishment 

 ought not to be severe. 



Mr. William Smith thought, that 

 though a libel on an individual may 

 be of incalculable injury, yet a libel 

 on the house of commons stood 

 upon a very diflerent ground, and 

 could be of little importance when 

 not in unison Avith the public feel- 

 ing : he did not, therefore, think 

 that it was material to notice it ; but 

 having been noticed, he thought the 

 house should mark it with its dis- 

 pleasure. 



After a few more words from Dr. 

 Lawrence, Mr. Peter Stuart was 

 called in, and, in answer to a ques- 

 tion from the speaker, acknowledg- 

 ed that the paper was printed and 

 published by him. 



The Speaker siiid, that paper has 

 been complained of to the house as 

 containing libellous reflections on 

 its conduct and character. What 

 have you to say in answer to the 

 charge? — To which Mr. Stuart re. 

 plied : " Permit me, sir, to assure 

 " you, that I very much regret that 

 " any part of the contents of my 

 " paper of yesterday should havs 

 " incurred the displeasure of this' 

 " honourable house. If, sir, I have 

 " expressed myself too warmly in 

 " favour of lord Melville, for whom 

 " I shall always entertain the higb- 



"cst 



i 



