HISTORY OF EUROPE. 



85 



however, that the editors of papers 

 would take notice, and receive warn- 

 ing, if this mode were pers^isted in, 

 that a great change had taken place 

 in the syslem of forbearance hither- 

 to adhered to, and regulate their 

 conduct accordingly. 



Mr. Sheridan saw nothing incon- 

 sistent in the conduct of his honour, 

 able friend, (Mr. Grey). Hehad,on 

 a former night, given way to a dis- 

 position for lenity, but now, when 

 he found that disposition had been 

 abused, there was no inconsistency 

 in thinking that this lenity had been 

 misplaced, and that some severer pu- 

 nishment should take place. Me 

 felt sorry that the petition had been 

 so worded that he could not give it 

 his support, and should therefore 

 agree in the vote of his honourable 

 friend. 



Mr. Whitbread asked, was it tct 

 be endured that the editor of a news- 

 paper should tell the house of 

 commons, that he had sat in judg- 

 ment upon them and their proceed- 

 ings, and pronounced his applause 

 or his censure on the different par- 

 ties iu parliament as he thought fit J 

 lie did not, however, wish any se- 

 verity of punishment on the present 

 occasion, but recommended to the 

 honourable baronet to withdraw this 

 petition, for the purpose of prepar- 

 ing another, that might be less ex- 

 ceptionable. 



Mr. Wilbf-rforcc did not think 

 that the dignity of the house should 

 be engaged in discussing what sort 

 of petition it would be right to re- 

 ceive ; but certainly this was not so. 

 It was deficient in the temper and 

 Tiew of it. It was not in that style 

 of expression which ought to be pre- 

 sented to the house of commons in 

 behalf of a person who had ottended 

 ks digoity. It was a case ia vrbich 



the petitioner ought to make a gen- 

 tlemanly apology to the whole 

 house of commons, and not one 

 side of the house, Avhich he could 

 not help considering was the case in 

 the present instance. 



The solicitor general, at consider- 

 able length, defended the petition. 

 He saw nothing in it of that offen- 

 sive matter which had been alluded 

 to, by several gentlemen, in the 

 course of the debate. If any of the 

 expressions in the petition were 

 (and he did not admit they were) 

 offensive to the house, they could 

 not aggravate his offence, when they 

 were dictated by a spirit which in- 

 tended to lessen it. He concluded 

 by declaring that he found himself 

 c.illcd upon to support the motion 

 of the honourable baronet, to call 

 ihc petitioner to the bar, in order 

 to his being discharged. After some 

 further discussion on the subject, 

 the house divided — for the mo- 

 tion 142, — against it 1'21, — majo- 

 rity 21. 



Mr. Peter Stuart was then brought 

 to the bar, and having received a 

 reprimand from the speaker, was 

 discharged. 



Mr. Sheridan then rose, and ob- 

 served, that previously to the vote 

 of thanks he was about to move, it 

 might be necessary to take a view of 

 (he conduct of the commissioners of 

 naval enquiry, as also to give a 

 sketch of what the different reports 

 contained. Tt.e commissioners were 

 professedly selected out of the ta- 

 lents, the respec'ab lity, and the 

 worth of the country, and it ought 

 to be understood that their conduct 

 had been such as to entitle them to 

 nnequivocal approbation and confi- 

 dence. Mr. Sheridan then examined 

 the contents of each particular re- 

 port, and concluded With moving as 

 G 3 follows : 



