HISTORY OF EUROPE. 



91 



Mr. SheriJan stated, that the 

 object he had in view, in the mo- 

 tion which he had submitted to 

 the House, was, not to prevent any 

 individual member from clearing 

 the gallery, but merely to require, 

 that after he had done so he should 

 condescend to give some reason 

 for the step. If, after the exclu- 

 sion of the strangers, the House 

 should acquiesce in the propriety 

 of the motives for that exclusion, 

 the public would then be satisfied. 

 To wliat was it owing that Great 

 Britain was able to maintain a 

 struggle, and he hoped it would be 

 a successful struggle, with the vic- 

 torious arms that had trampled on 

 the independence of the prostrate 

 nations of Europe for the liberties 

 of the world ? To the liberty of 

 the pr<ess alone, and most particu- 

 larly and emphatically to the unre- 

 strained publication of the debates 

 and proceedings of pari lament. It 

 had been asked how such publica- 

 tion could produce any public be- 

 nefit, or conduce to the well-being 

 or happiness of the nation ? By 

 shewing to the people the grounds 

 on which public measures were 

 resorted to, and particularly by 

 convincing them of theirnecessity; 

 thus inducing the public to sub- 

 mit with patience to the heaviest 

 burdens that had ever been im- 

 posed upon a nation. — Mr. She- 

 ridan was sorry to hear his right 

 honourable friend resorting to a 

 topic which he must be allowed to 

 denominate the old bugbear, when 

 he found him gravely asserting, 

 that the practice of reporting the 

 proceedings of that House, which 

 had grown up of late, was likely 

 to lead to a revolution. Was it the 

 liberty of the press that brought 

 France into that dreadful state of 



anarchy and ruin which charac- 

 terized the revolution ? Was it 

 not, on the contrary, the suppres- 

 sion of all liberty of discussion ? — t 

 The prohibition of all publications 

 not sanctioned by the permission of 

 authority — the prevention of that 

 rational and temperate considera- 

 tion of public measures and inte- 

 rests which alone could excite and 

 nourish patriotic feelings and pub- 

 lic spirit i — If the liberty of the 

 press had existed in France before 

 or since the revolution — if it had 

 existed in Austria — if in Prussia— 

 if in Spain, Buonaparte would not 

 now find himself in a situation to 

 dictate to Europe, and filling the 

 throne of nearly an universal mo* 

 narch. 



As to the speech of the mem- 

 ber who moved the standing or-p 

 der, that honourable gentleman 

 seemed to have forgotten altoge- 

 ther that certain papers had been 

 laid upon the table of the House, 

 and ordered to be printed, and 

 that the oral evidence to be taken 

 at the bar, was called for only to 

 supply deficiencies in those papers, 

 or to invalidate or confirm the 

 statements they contained. 



As to the analogy between the 

 House of Commons in its inquisi- 

 torial capacity, and a grand jury, 

 grand juries did not publish the 

 evidence on which they were 

 bound to form a decision, because 

 it could be only an ex-parte state- 

 ment, which, however, might in- 

 fluence the opinion or verdict of a 

 petty jury. But it was essential to 

 theproceedingsin which the House 

 was engaged to publish documents 

 on which it was, ultimately, to 

 form its decision. — Mr. Sheridan, 

 in conclusion of his reply, begged 

 of gentlemen not to mistake his 



