House, of the printed newspaper, entitled, "The Times, Wednesday, Dec. 26, 1798," London: Printed at the Printing Office, in Printing House Square, Blackfriars, by C. Bell, and published by J. Bonsor, as containing an account of the debates, and misrepresenting the speeches of some of the members of this House, in contempt of the orders, and in breach of the privilege, of this House." The said paper having been delivered in, and one of the paragraphs complained of read, Mr. Pitt said:-I do not rise to oppose the motion. Not having seen the paper alluded to, it is impossible for me to have any farther knowledge of its contents than what I have been able to collect from the statement made by the hon. gentleman; but as it relates to what passed a few evenings ago, I beg to say a few words on it Dow. The hon. gentleman has candidly stated what then fell from me on that subject. And I have no doubt now, that what the hon. gentleman then stated was intended by him merely in illustration. But though the hon. gentleman has confessed that, according to my statements, he was in the wrong, yet he has not made any answer to the question, whether the noble personage to whom I alluded, was the same person he meant. I hope the hon. gentleman will have the candour, so far to clear up the point as to give an explicit answer to that question. And now, having said thus much on this particular subject, I beg leave to offer a few words on the point immediately under the consideration of the House. I am clearly of opinion with you, Sir, that if the House take up this business at all, it will be necessary in the first place to advert to the breach of the standing order of the House, which forbids any publication of what passes in it. It will be for the House to consider how far they will wave the consideration of the repeated breaches which have been made, with regard to this order. 1 should be very sorry to interpose the authority of the House in restricting what has long been permitted, as a medium of communication between this House and the public. But, Sir, the daily occasions which are given by the public prints for complaints from every quarter of the House of misrepresenting and misstating what passes in it, require the attentive consideration of the House, to devise some means of checking or preventing this growing abuse. Mr. Tierney said, that lord Auckland was the person alluded to. The mistake had originated in a misstatement of the fortune of that noble lord. The right hon. gentleman, however, had stated from his personal knowledge, that the account was utterly unfounded. He now, therefore, withdrew his sanction from a statement which had come to him as a rumour. Mr. Secretary Dundas said, he thought the hon. gentleman must now have attained the object he had in view in bringing in this complaint. It was certainly true that misrepresentation was an aggravation of the breach of privilege in printing the proceedings of the House at all: but the breach of privilege was what the House had to consider. If the hon. gentleman was not content with stating the complaint for the purpose of correcting an error, which probably would be corrected by what had now passed in the very same paper to-morrow, the complaint must go a great deal farther than the hon. gentleman might intend. Every other person who had published the proceedings alluded to, must likewise be called up. He thought, therefore, that it would be better at present to withdraw the motion. If the object in view was the protection of the privileges of the House, this would be attained; as what had already taken place would show that the House was determined to go to the rigour of its privileges, if they were abused. If it was persisted in, no distinction could be made; and those who had been equally guilty of a breach of the privileges of this House as the printer in question, would be equally liable to its animadversion. Mr. Tierney said, that this case differed widely from every other. The account was inserted several days after the conversation had taken place, and professed to correct other statements. As to the motion, he thought it belonged to the House to dispose of it. He should not withdraw it. He did feel it as a malevolent attempt to excite animosities between individuals, and he was convinced that its insertion had been paid for by some persons in this view. Mr. Windham (Secretary at War) said, that since this subject was brought before the House, they had no option, under their order, with respect to the vote they were to give, and he hoped it would have the effect to correct a practice which he had even thought before he was in parlia liament, and since he had been in it, an intolerable abuse, materially affecting not [154 only the dignity of the House, but the in- up in a few hours ought to be distinguishterests of the country. These disadvan-ed from an account which had been contages resulted from it, independent of the sidered for several days; and he left it to misrepresentations so justly complained gentlemen to judge, whether there was of. He hoped therefore that this com- not here an intention to convert reports plaint would operate as a check, and re- into a vehicle of attack upon the members move any false impressions as to the rea- of the House. sons which had induced the House to permit the practice. He assented to the motion, not on account of the injustice which the hon. gentleman had suffered, though he should not be less sensible of the injustice done to him than to any other member, but on the general ground, that a particular case of injustice was vastly subordinate to the great object of protecting the privileges of the House, which were violated by the publication of their proceedings at all. However long the House had connived at the practice, he should be sorry that the question should go off without the House giving an opinion upon the important subject of these privileges. He had stated his opinion on the general point. As to the misrepresentations complained of, it was impossible to expect that daily subject of complaint would not occur when the situation of persons concerned in the employment, and the influence of every kind to which they were subject, was considered. This practice had grown into a great evil, and it was but of recent origin; nor did he think that parliament, in former times, had been so ignorant of what was proper to be done with regard to the regulation of their privileges, and that it was only in modern times that we had discovered what was the proper course to follow. Mr. Martin wished the matter to be now decided. There was no occasion for farther warning, after what had been said a few days ago by an hon. gentleman. He had long observed the misrepresentations which were given of what passed in the House; and thought that those who wrote the reports made gentlemen say just what they themselves pleased. Mr. W. Smith said, that gentlemen did not seem willing to observe the distinction between this case and others where misrepresentation might exist. However the orders of the House might consider the publication as the chief offence, gentlemen's minds must take into consideration the intention with which a misrepresentation was accompanied. If misrepresentation was an aggravation of the breach of privilege, the intention was an aggravation of that misrepresentation. A report made Mr. Wilberforce said, he stood in a particular situation in regard to the question. He certainly, the other night, declared it to be his opinion, that it became the House, for the credit and the character of individuals in certain respects, but for the great object which the House ought always to have in view, the character of the House of Commons and the safety of the constitution, to provide some remedy against the misrepresentations of the proceedings of parliament, which had of late arisen to a height too great to be allowed to continue. All that had passed since had not contributed to alter his opinion. But although the article now complained of by the hon. gentleman might be liable to censure, yet he must observe, that to take this paper, and this only, as one that ought to be the object of censure, would be a very unfair mode of proceeding. But with regard to the sort of reflection that had been cast upon him, he could not help observing, that there seemed to be a disposition in some gentlemen to take notice always of the manner in which he spoke his sentiments in that House, and it was rather insinuated, as if he was actuated by some angry motives in what he said. He thought this a little extraordinary to come from some gentlemen who had for a long time been acquainted with him. Perhaps from a natural warmth of temper, he was led sometimes to speak in a manner that was more acrimonious than he might wish; his motives, however, were always the same, and all his conduct tended to one point, the good of the public. Be these things as they might, he should always express his opinions freely; and now that he was upon this subject, he should take the liberty of saying, there was a very common practice in that House, which, for its honour and dignity, he wished to be discontinued. Gentlemen were in the habit of speaking of one another in a fulsome style of compliment, in a way that might, perhaps, please some bystanders, but which neither aided the debate, nor had the least tincture of sincerity in it; and the very members themselves, who used that sort of language in the House, treated it every where else as empty sound and flirting nonsense. This was a practice that did no credit to the House, and he, for one, wished to see it set aside, and the language of sincerity adopted. With respect to the question before the House, he never wished to put a stop to the fair statement of the proceedings of parliament. It had long been a desire with him, that they should be accurately given to the public; and he should look back with pleasure to the moment of his life, in which he was aware he had been in any degree instrumental in bringing about that desired object. But he must repeat, that if any notice was to be taken by the House of the inaccuracy of newspapers, this paper should not be the only one complained of, while there were others equally faulty. believe that the account was sent to the editor by some person whose object it was to misrepresent what had happened, but which person, he feared, he should never be able to bring forward. Indeed, the editors of papers having no interest in misrepresenting what passed in the House, but, on the contrary, a direct interest in the accuracy of the accounts they gave, he did not think they would designedly misrepresent any thing. But when an account was brought to a newspaper several days after the occurrence took place, and was inserted as an advertisement, the case was different, and there the intention of the misrepresentation was manifest, and the evil was greater too than if it appeared the day following the date; in the one case, the error was likely to be detected by comparing one paper with another; but when it was published several days afterwards, that advantage was lost. There was no reason, however, in this case to impute to the editor of "The Times" any design to misrepresent what had taken place in the House. As it was clear that somebody had brought the account, and paid for it as an advertisement, and as he could not bring forward the author, it would be unjust to call upon the House to censure the editor. He would therefore move "That the said order be discharged." Mr. Pitt thought it would be much better to defer this debate, as it involved a point of great importance; namely, the mode in which the matter should be dis posed of. On the question of the standing order there could be no difference of opinion; but on the other points many arguments ought to be urged, and when they came forward, no doubt the House would give to them the attention they should merit. He would observe, however, in passing, that if any determination was come to upon the paper now complained of, the House owed it to its justice to adopt the same with regard to others. After the long connivance of the House at the publication of its proceedings, and the gross abuse of that connivance, it would be inconsistent with the dignity or the justice of the House to make any partial order upon this particular case. What had already happened might be considered as a fair warning to others. If the particular passages complained of in this paper were to be pointed out, he thought that the regular way would be to adjourn the debate to some future day. The further consideration of the matter of the said Complaint was then adjourned till the 31st. Dec. 31. The House having resumed, according to order, the adjourned consideration of the said Complaint, Mr. Tierney said, it was his wish that the said order should be discharged. He had been assured that the editor of "The Times" paper did not wish to give an inaccurate account of what had passed in the House, and he had good reason to Mr. Windham (Secretary at War) observed, that the hon. gentleman might act as he thought proper, either to call for, or to desire to withdraw, the attention of the House from the matter how before it, and so far as it regarded the personal feeling of the hon. gentleman, no person had a right to judge upon the matter but himself; but when this subject came before the House, he would say, without any disrespect whatever to the hon. gentleman, that his feeling upon the matter was by far the least important part of it. This distinction was not much entered into when this subject was first introduced to the notice of the House; but now that it came before the House, he should consider the question of a breach of privilege upon its broad principle as it affected the state, and not as a narrow question of personal feeling. The nature of the question was the same whatever accident had brought it before the House, or whatever connivance might be imputed to the House with regard to the publishing the reports of its proceedings; and therefore he should proceed on the question itself, without re gard to the mode in which it had been brought forward to the notice of the House. To proceed on an offence against the hon. gentleman who had complained of it, and to treat it as an act of guilt, as a libel upon that hon. gentleman, without taking notice of it as a breach of the privilege of that House, could not be regularly done. To treat it with severity at once in the person of the offender, was what he would not recommend, not only because there were other accounts of debates in which the name of the same hon. gentleman occurred, in which aspersions of the most malignant kind were poured forth and which had hitherto passed in silence, but also because he thought it would be hardly fair, now that they had a particular individual in their power, to proceed to extremities with him in the first instance, and, as it were, on a sudden and without notice. There were many instances of crimes in which the offender was not punished to the utmost rigour in the first instance: in the case of a highway robbery the law was to be pronounced at once, but not so in offences of inferior degree; and in some cases where the complexion of the thing was uncertain, where the intention of the party was doubtful, he could not think of calling for the vengeance of the law. So in this case, although the thing itself was decidedly illegal, yet as some persons might have been led to think that the opinion of the legislature upon the propriety of conniving at the matter was altered, and that such connivance to a certain degree warranted the practice, those who acted, however erroneously, on that opinion, had a claim, if not upon the justice, at least upon the generosity of the House. But it would be dangerous to indulge any disposition to lenity in the second instance, for that led to a repetition of the argument by which the practice was attempted to be supported; for if the connivance of yesterday be a reason for to-day, to-morrow the reason will be stronger than it is now, and indulgence will give birth to the assumption of right; and thus the House, if they did determine upon the first case that came before it, would soon be debarred from vindicating, without the imputation of harshness, its own privilege. He thought that the conduct of the House would be rigid, if it proceeded to extremity on this sudden occasion; but he thought that an end ought to be put to that relaxation of duty by which the re porters of newspapers had been permitted to publish their proceedings; for it was a growing evil. After having had fair warning, they would not have any reason to complain; for they ought to be taught that there was to be an end of the practice of detailing the proceedings of the House; and although they could not pass over altogether the case of the person now before them, but must censure his conduct in this first instance of their notice, yet, if any one should hereafter offend, he should be treated with greater severity. Perhaps he felt more strongly than others the effect of this practice of reporting the proceedings of the House, and therefore was more ready than others to call for a remedy for the evil of relaxation of the duty of the House, it being only from that relaxation that such a practice could possibly arise. He knew a number of persons who held all these things extremely cheap, and therefore would be ready to look with compassionate feelings towards those who became the object of the resentment of the House for publishing any of its proceedingswho would smile at all these irregularities as trifles below the grave attention of a House of Parliament. He had no great respect for that sort of wisdom in itself. He knew how things apparently trivial in their nature produced prodigious effects. To things in their appearance trivial at first sight, was owing the downfall of France. Things of a trivial nature were passed by as unworthy of notice, and, in less than twelve months afterwards, there tumbled a whole kingdom into a heap of ruins, and with its fall there appeared calamities which no mortal, not bereft of the feelings of humanity, could behold without horror. He therefore wished not to possess that species of philosophy which teaches us to despise trifling things; on the contrary, he saw great things arising out of those that were apparently little. Indeed, the whole system of human nature showed how attentive we ought to be to those things that were commonly called trifles, since the existence of human life frequently depended upon them. If, therefore, this doctrine was applicable to the safety of the human frame, how could it be otherwise with regard to human institutions? He thought the practice that had prevailed now for a considerable number of years was calculated to produce very serious consequences: for the general tendency of publishing the proceedings of that House was to change the government from a representative, to an entirely democratic one. But to take a consideration of two things, a purely democratic government, and a representative one, such as ours was at present: let us take a view of what was urged by some as the desirable perfection of our system, and what never, in fact, existed in the world-that all the people were actually represented, as well as virtually, and then let us see what the effect would be of publishing the proceed ings of parliament to all the people. What would be the natural effect of such publication? It must be that of changing the present form of government, and of making it democratical; for it was calling every day on the public to judge of the proceedings of parliament. By these daily publications the people were taught to look upon themselves as present at the discussion of all the proceedings of parliament, and sitting in judgment on them. This might be a very good and a very wise change when effected; but that he was not now arguing: he was only showing that this change would be the consequence of the practice to which he had alluded. The change of the present government of the country into a democratical government, might be very good in the opinion of some; but certainly none would dispute it was a very great and material change that it would be a material change, the proceedings of this day illustrated. How came this practice of reporting the proceedings of parliament into being? It was not much above twenty years ago since it was first tolerated. Some of the predecessors of the Speaker now in the chair (Mr. Cust or Mr. Onslow for instance) would have been a good deal surprised that a practice of this kind was to be at all debated in the House of Com-dency, it must be confined to a few hearmons. Either of them would have called forth, not the discussion, but the immediate authority of the House, to take into custody any person who had presumed to publish any of its proceedings. But now, it seemed, the House was not to do this; the printer, poor innocent! had no evil intention; and therefore the motion, although involving a breach of privilege of that House, was to be withdrawn. This was very modern, and he would take leave to say, very mischievous doctrine. There would have been no difficulty about it formerly. Gentlemen might say, there was no more difficulty now than there was formerly about shutting up the gallery. He was of another opinion: if the House showed a disposition for yielding any point, its authority might, indeed, be made use of to destroy itself, for the connivance of the House had been abused, and so might his mildness: passing over such a breach of privilege after complaint made, would be an act of the House; it would have its authority; that authority would be quoted in answer to any complaint of another breach of privilege; and thus the authority of the House would be made to destroy itself. This, however, was not viewing the point in its worst colours. The House might protect itself at any time, when a breach of its privileges came before it; but this was an abuse of the constitution, and led to that condition of things in which there would be no room for prudence to conduct us-when the question would be, not for a reform, but a revolution. He should, for one, wish to see the House revert to the practice of times, when we had a constitution that was worth something. The House should now follow the same plan as they did formerly, unless it was clear that any other was better, and he had not heard it yet alleged, that the modern was superior to the ancient practice in this particular.But to go back to the consideration that really ought to guide the House, to consider the effect of this practice in a distinct point of view: the principle on which the House proceeded in some things was, that what passed in the House would not pass out of the House, except what any member might possibly relate to his friends. This could never be mischievous, for, besides the discretion which would generally guide the conduct of a member, and would keep him from repeating any thing that might be of an inflammatory ten ers, and those above the lower classes of society, therefore the less easily tainted in their principles. But, under the practice of reporting in the newspapers, every thing that was said in that House, and which could not be said with safety any where, else, was under the cover and authority of parliament, and by this legerdemain of reporting scattered all over the kingdom; so that the most rank sedition that was ever yet thought of was not confined to the hearing of the House, where the education and condition of the hearers would shield them from its influence, but was made public to all degrees and condi |