Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

stances of the present case, what he considered to be of most importance was to come at the person of the author. He

had reason to believe that Mr. Reeves was the author, and since he came into the House he had been confirmed in his belief. He had been given to understand that a formal disavowal would be made of the fact, but he considered that which had been made by the secretary at war to be by no means satisfactory. He had great objections to instituting any oppressive prosecutions against a poor printer or publisher, who looked for security to the character of his employer, and could have no idea that he would receive any thing of a libellous or unconstitutional tendency from the chairman of a loyal association. In order that proper steps might be taken to come at the author, he would adopt a precedent of 1707, and conclude with moving "That a Committee be appointed to inquire who was the author of the said pamphlet."

Mr. W. Smith said, that he had such strong objections to all prosecutions for political pamphlets, that he should move, in case of a discovery, that the proceedings of the House be confined to a censure upon the author.

The motion was agreed to, and a Com. mittee appointed.

committee, on the plea that it might tend to criminate himself. And being finally asked whether he persisted in refusing to answer any questions the committee might put to him? he replied, yes.

he knows Mr. Wright, the printer, in PeterMr. John Lake being examined, said, that borough-court, as also Mr. Street and Mr. Stump. And being examined, whether he ever heard these persons speak of a pamphlet intituled, "Thoughts on the English Government?" he said, he had. And being the author of the pamphlet? he said, yes; asked, whether he ever heard them speak of and that he heard Mr. M'Dowall's brother acknowledge that he composed the press for the pamphlet, particularly those parts which have been deemed libellous by the House of Commons; and also that Mr. Reeves had been backwards and forwards at the office, and the pamphlet was commonly known throughout the office by the name of Mr. Reeves's pamphlet. That, Mr. Wright, the printer, was commissioned by Mr. Reeves let; and in consequence Mr. Wright apto get a person to publish the said pamphplied to several booksellers, who refused to publish it, Mr. Wright refusing to give up the author; and Mr. Owen, in Piccadilly, undertook to publish it, and Mr. Wright's porter delivered it, by the name of Mr. Reeves's pamphlet, to Mr. Owen; and the witness thinks Mr. M'Dowall's brother said, that Mr. Reeves made some interlineations at his frame, while composing, 'and that Mr. Reeves generally corrected the press.

Mr. Charles McDowall being examined,

Dec. 1. Mr. Sheridan brought up the said, that he is compositor to Mr. Wright. following

REPORT

From the Committee appointed to inquire who was the Author of the Pamphlet, intituled, "Thoughts on the English Government-addressed to the quiet good sense of the People of England; in a series of Letters-Letter the first, on the National Character of Englishmenthe Nature of the English Governmentthe Corruptions caused in both by the introduction of French Principles-the effects produced by the Reformation and the Revolution upon Political Principlesthe conduct of the Whig Party-the Character of the modern Democrats:-London, printed for J. Owen, No. 168 Piccadilly-1795."

Mr. John Owen being examined, said, that he is a bookseller, and lives in Piccadilly.And being asked, if he knew a publication, intituled,Thoughts on the English Government"? he replied, yes; his name was signed to it. After this declaration, Mr. Owen declined giving any farther information to your

[blocks in formation]

That he recollects the pamphlet, intituled, "Thoughts on the English Government," being printed at his office. And being asked, whether the press was corrected during the printing of the pamphlet from the manuscript sheets? he said, it was. And being asked, what persons he saw superintending the press, and correcting the proofs; he replied, no one, but Mr. Reeves. And being asked, if he knew Mr. Reeves by sight; he said, yes; he lives in Cecil-street. And being asked, whether he saw Mr. Reeves frequently during the printing of the pamphlet, superintending the work? he said, yes. And being asked, if he ever saw Mr. Reeves write on or correct any of the proofs? he said, he was not certain. And being asked, whether he ever spoke to Mr. Reeves at Mr. Wright's; he said, yes; frequently. And being asked whether Mr. Reeves's conduct at Mr. Wright's was such as to lead the witness to believe him to be the author of the pamphlet, he replied, yes. And being asked, whether he knew the hand-writing of Mr. Reeves? he said, yes, the hand-writing that goes for his. And being asked, was the hand-writing of this pamphlet, in his opinion, the same as the hand-writing that goes for Mr. Reeves's, he said, yes.

William Augustus Miles, esq., being examined, was asked whether he has any, and what, reason to know who is the author of the pamphlet, intituled, "Thoughts on the English Government?" he said, yes. In the first instance, from Mr. Owen's having presented it to him as Mr. Reeves's pamphlet ; and in the course of a few hours afterwards, meeting Mr. Reeves turning out of the treasury, he (the witness) informed him, that he had received a pamphlet written by him. Mr. Reeves asked him the title? He told him. Mr. Reeves then inquired, if John Owen had informed him, that he (Mr. Reeves) was the author? From delicacy to the bookseller, he said, no; but the secret was revealed by a printer's man, who, by Mr. Owen's declaration, he understood to be Mr. Wright's man. Mr. Reeves then earnestly recommended him to read the pamphlet; and to the best of his recollection, Mr. Reeves desired him to let him know what he thought of it. That the witness, on his return, read it, and found the following passage:

lencies of our constitution by its excellencies -for they plead far more eloquently in its favour, than either your writings or those of Mr. Burke. The misfortune is, that you confound the abuses of government with the government itself; and having by far a much greater and more decided interest in the preservation of the one than of the other, your anxiety for the latter is merely a contigency on the former, and becomes a mere secondary consideration. I will tell you very candidly, that I thought you were going greater lengths than either facts or policy warranted, in November 1792; and I am inclined to believe, that your present labours are more likely to do mischief than good. What you have said in pages 12 and 13, would, in the reign of George 1st, have sent you to the pillory; and if ministers discharge their duty, they must discourage the publication in question-for it is no less incumbent on them to discountenance attacks on the constitution from one description of men than from another. Whether it is assailed by the intemperate zeal of royalists or republicans, it ought to be defended; for it has equal danger to apprehend from the extravagant pretensions of the one, and the rancorous animosity of the other, and as an individual interested in its preservation, I will oppose, coute qu'il coute, any innovation on the part of the crown, as vehemently as I would on the part of democracy; and if you held the blessings of a free constitution in as much reverence, and the smiles of lord Hawkesbury as cheap, as I do, your name would not be so "its honours, but not like them cast into the generally detested, and the part that you "fire. The kingly government may go on, would have taken in those political questions "in all its functions, without Lords or Com- which unhappily divide us, would have been "mons," so repugnant to the principles of much more to your credit, though not so luthe Revolution of 1688, that the witness im- crative.-I should not have said thus much, mediately sent a transcript of it to the chan- if you had not pressed me to read a pamphlet cellor of the exchequer, accompanied by a let-that is very ill calculated to allay the ferment ter; and on the morning following the witness wrote a letter to Mr. Reeves; a copy of which letter was delivered in to the committee, and read, the witness requesting it might stand a part of his examination; and is as follows:

[ocr errors]

"In fine, the government of England is a "monarchy; the monarchy is the ancient "stock from which have sprung those goodly branches of the legislature, the "Lords and Commons, that at the same time give ornament to the tree, and afford shelter "to those who seek protection under it. But "these are still only branches, and derive "their origin and their nutriment from their "common parent; they may be lopped off, "and the tree is a tree still: shorn indeed of

"Pall Mall, November 6th, 1795. "I have read your pamphlet, sir, with equal attention and concern; with attention, because you recommended it strongly to my perusal, and with concern, because I was hurt that any man, acquainted with the principles of the English constitution, should have the indiscretion or effrontery to misrepresent them in a manner so very gross and unpardonable. Such writings tend to bring monarchy much more into disrepute than the harangues of Mr. Thelwall and Co.; and monarchy in this country does not require to be sustained by trick and contrivance; it has the support of reason, policy, and experience. The nonsense and falsehoods of writers, who only prove their ignorance or servility, will endanger it; and if my advice should be asked, I would se riously recommend you to defend the excel

in men's minds, and which I consider as a libel on the constitution-injurious to the interests and to the dignity of the crown, and an insult to that good sense to which you have appealed. I have only to add, that I shall most cordially rejoice when these disputes are at an end, and when questions of this nature cease to animate our conversations, and to sour men's dispositions towards each other-such questions cannot benefit the cause you wish to serve, but they may ruin it; and it well behoves you, sir, to pause and think! I am, &c."

'To John Reeves, esq.
Cecil Street, Strand.""

And the witness being asked, whether he received any answer from Mr. Reeves, disavowing his being the author of the pamphlet? he said, he did not. And being asked, if he has any reason to know that Mr. Reeves received the letter? he replied, yes; from Mr. Reeves's having exposed it to Mr. Wright, in consequence of a paragraph in the Morning Chronicle of the 9th instant, in which the offensive extract was included; in consequence

of which Mr. Wright came to Mr. Owen, and found fault with him for having accused Mr. Reeves of being the author, informing Mr. Owen that he (the witness) must have sent that extract to that Morning Chronicle; in consequence of which the witness wrote to Mr. Reeves a letter, of which the following is a copy; which was read; viz.

"Pall Mall, Nov. 11, 1795. "Sir;-Your printer has insinuated, that the libellous extract from your pamphlet, which appeared in the Morning Chronicle on the 9th instant, was sent by me; and he draws that conclusion from having seen the private letter that I addressed to you on that subject, the 6th instant. It is merely to refute a falsehood, which may be the foundation of much calumny and misrepresentation, that I assure you I was perfectly ignorant of the extract, or any comment on it, having been sent to any of the public prints. It is however incumbent on me to add, that I perfectly approve of the exposure, from the full conviction I have, that such doctrines have a direct tendency to mischief, and to alienate the affections of the people from his majesty and his government. As you have judged it expedient to expose my correspondence in part, I call on your candour to produce the whole of it, or I shall be under the necessity of sending copies of my letter to the different papers in defence of myself. I am &c. "WILLIAM MILES.

And being asked, upon what principle he refused to answer the question? he said, one of the first lessons inculcated on a printer upon his initiation into his profession is, that the name of the author of a manuscript committed to his care or keeping is a most sacred deposit, from which he is never to part without the assent or permission of the author, unless compelled by public justice. And being asked, whether he should think himself justified in brought to his office? he said, no, by no means; printing any manuscript on any political subject he would exercise that judgment and discre ther it contained matter of a libellous nature, tion which he possesses, in determining whewhether public or private, or any thing that That he has endeavoured to exercise that was against what is called contra bonos mores. judgment in all the publications which he had been concerned in. And being asked, whether he had read the pamphlet in question? he thought objectionable he would not have he replied, yes; and if he had seen any thing printed it. And the witness being asked, would not the authority of the person bringing him a work weigh with him as well as his private judgment? he replied, the authority of the person bringing him a work to print would weigh with him (as he believes it private judgment. would with every other printer) as well as his And being asked, whether he had ever conversed with Mr. Reeves on the subject of the pamphlet in question? he said, yes. And being asked, whether he And being asked, whether he ever heard meant to say, that he had not conversed with Mr. Reeves give any directions respecting Mr. Reeves for this month past, on the subthe circulation of this pamphlet? He replied,ject of the pamphlet? he said, not as the auon Saturday the 21st instant, Mr. Reeves came into Mr. Owen's shop, and enquired how the pamphlet attributed to him went off, or words to that effect. Mr. Reeves then put one or more pamphlets into his pocket, and, in the witness's hearing, desired six copies of the pamphlet in question to be sent to lord Hawkesbury's office.

Mr. Benjamin Hinton being examined, said, that he is porter to Mr. Wright the printer, and delivers out the publications. That he remembers delivering out a pamphlet, intituled,."Thoughts on the English Government." That he delivered it to Mr. Owen the bookseller in Piccadilly. That he had been printing an address from Mr. Reeves to the king. That when he delivered the pamphlet to Mr. Owen, he (the witness) said it was Mr. Reeves's pamphlet. That he has seen Mr. Reeves come into Mr. Wright's printing office. That he knows Mr. Reeves's person. As near as the witness can guess, the pamphlet came into his hands about a fortnight ago and before that, he had seen Mr. Reeves at the office several times.

Mr. Thomas Wright, a printer, being examined, was asked, whether he knew the author of the pamphlet, intituled, "Thoughts on the English Government?" He replied, he declined giving up the name of the author.

thor of it, to his knowledge, but as the person who superintended the correction of the press. And being asked, in what respect did Mr. Reeves superintend the correction of the press? he said, in correcting the proofs which he might do for a friend. And being asked, when the publication was printed, to what publisher did he send it? he replied, to the person whose name is at the bottom of the pamphlet. And being asked, whether he did not know that person was Mr. Owen? he said, certainly. And being asked by whose advice or direction did he send the pamphlet to Mr Owen? he said by the advice and direction of no person-it was his own doing entirely he employed Mr. Owen. And being asked, whether he had ever any conversation with Mr. Reeves respecting Mr. Owen being the publisher? he said, not previous to it; but as Mr. Reeves had corrected the pamphlet, he mentioned it to him as the gentleman who had corrected the pamphlet. And being asked, had this pamphlet not answered in point of sale, frour whom should he expect to be paid? he said from no one; the loss would have been his own, and he understands the profit would also be his. And being asked, from what authority he understood the profit of this pam phlet would have been his, if it sold well?

--

he replied, from the gentleman from whom | plied, most certainly. And being asked, whehe received the manuscript. And being ask-ther he has any part of the original copy? he ed, who was that gentleman? he replied, the believes there may be some about the house. gentleman who corrected the pamphlet. And And being asked, if there are any proof sheets being asked, was not that gentleman Mr. about the house, corrected by Mr. Reeves? Reeves? he answered, he had said that above. he said, he is inclined to think there are. And the evidence being read to the witness, he was asked, whether he had any explanation to add to the answers he had already given? he said, he had not.

Mr. John Gillet being examined, and shown the pamphlet, intituled, "Thoughts on the English Government," he was asked, Whether he had not heard Mr. Owen delare that Mr. Reeves was the author of that pamphlet? he replied yes, in his own shop frequently.

Mr. Thomas Gillet being examined, was asked, whether he was not in Mr. Owen's shop on or about Saturday the 21st November? he said, yes. And being asked to relate any conversation he heard respecting the circulation of the pamphlet, intituled, "Thoughts on the English Government?" he informed your committee, that Mr. Reeves came into the shop, and he said to Mr. Owen, "Where is this pamphlet, that is ascribed to me." Mr. Owen pointed to the pamphlet. Mr. Reeves took one up, and doubled it, and put it in his pocket, and asked whether it had sold wellhe then desired him to send half a dozen to some person's office in Westminster, but he (the witness) did not distinctly hear to whose office.

66

Mr. Wright being again examined, was asked how long Mr. Jones had superintended his business? he said, four or five years. And being asked, whether he had ever had reason to doubt of Mr. Jones's veracity or accuracy? he replied, that he never had the least doubt of his veracity or accuracy. Then,

Mr. Jones (having been directed by the committee to endeavour to find the proof sheets alluded to in his evidence) returned, and was again examined; and being asked, if he had found any of the proof sheets? he replied, he had brought the first he could lay his hands on. They are not complete. Then the witness produced the said sheets, and said, that a few of the alterations in the margin may be his own, which would be confined to typographical errata: that he cannot speak positively to all the others, but some are Mr. Reeves's to the best of his recollection. And being asked, whether he had not himself seen Mr. Reeves write upon some one of the papers now delivered in by him to the committee? he said, he had seen Mr. Reeves make alterations on certain of the sheets, but he could not from memory state which they are. And being asked whether he knew Mr. Reeves's hand-writing? he said, he thinks he does. He was then desired to look over the proof sheets delivered in by him, and point out what notes or observations are, to the best of his know

And the

Mr. Stephen Jones being examined, said, he is employed in Mr. Wright's office as overseer in his business, and is superintender of all the publications in his office. Being shown the pamphlet, intituled, Thoughts on the Eng-ledge. Mr. Reeves's hand-writing. fish Government," he was asked, whether he witness having looked over the said sheets, he superintended the progress, through the press, said, he finds all the passages now marked by of that pamphlet ? he said, he did. And be him with a cross are, to the best of his belief, ing asked whether he corrected the proofs ? he Mr. Reeves's hand-writing. And being again said, he did. And being asked, whether he asked, whether he had not himself actually and he alone, corrected the proofs ? he said seen Mr. Reeves in the act of marking the no-he corrected them in conjunction with proof sheets, or some of them, now delivered Mr. Wright. Mr. Wright invariably corrected in by him? he said, he had. And being asked, them the first or the second time-no sheet in whose hand-writing is the separate paper went to the press without his reading it. And included in the sheets delivered in by him, being asked, did no other person superintend which separate paper appears to be part of the the correcting the press besides himself and title of the said pamphlet? he said, he beMr. Wright? he said yes, there did. And lieved it to be Mr. Reeves's. And being asked being asked, who was that person? he said, whether he has had knowledge of Mr. Reeves Mr. Reeves. And being asked if he received printing other publications at Mr. Wright's directions from any persons superintending or office? he replied, yes, very many. He has correcting the press of a manuscript printed at been in the habit, and had the opportunity of his house, should he think himself bound to knowing Mr. Reeves's hand-writing. And attend to those directions, unless he considered being asked, with those means and opportu the person giving them as the author or act-nity of knowing his hand-writing, has the witing for the author? he said, he should not; he ness any doubt, that this separate paper, and should not suffer any one correction to be the observations and notes in the sheets are in made under such circumstances. And being Mr. Reeves's hand-writing? he said, he had asked, whether he attended to any direction not. And being asked, what Mr. Reeves, is or correction given to him in the case of print the person referred by him, as the corrector ing the pamphlet in question, from Mr. of the proof sheets, and superintender of the Reeves, he replied, yes. Then, in point of publication of this pamphlet? he answered, Mr. fact, he was asked, did he consider Mr. Reeves John Reeves, the chairman of the Association as the author, or acting for the author? he re- for protecting Liberty and Property against [VOL. XXXII.] [2 U]

Republicans and Levellers, The evidence having been read over to the witness, he was asked, whether he had any explanation, or farther observation to make upon it? he replied, he had not.-Then,

|

person bringing him the pamphlet would not weigh with him, as well as his own judgment on the publication; he meant to declare that the authority of Mr. Reeves bringing him the pamphlet in question had operat ed with him as an inducement to publish it. And being asked, whether he had not read the manuscript? he answered only parts of it. And being asked, whether the manuscript was not in the same hand-writing as the separate paper now shown to him, and which contains the title of the said pamphlet ? he said, that to the best of his judgment and recollection, such parts as he had seen were of the same hand-writing.

Mr. Wright was farther examined, and asked, whether he conceives Mr. Jones has a right to send out proof sheets or pamphlets, without any direct communication with him? he said. yes; he is in the habit of doing so, as well as all other overseers in printing offices. And being asked, from his knowledge of Mr. Jones, does he suppose he would deliver any proof sheets, as from his office, that were not printed there? he said, he should suppose not. And being asked, if he ever knew an instance of his doing so? he replied, no. And being asked, whether Mr. Jones has not an authority, from his situation with him, to deliver any proof sheets of works printed at his (the witnesses's) office, if required, without an immediate application to him, the witness? he replied, he certainly has; no printing could go on without a person in Mr. Jones's situation having that power.

Mr. Owen being farther examined, and being shown a passage in Mr. Miles's evidence, he was asked, whether he recollected receiving from Mr. Reeves the directions therein stated, to send six copies of the pamphlet in question to lord Hawkesbury's office; and whether he had executed those directions; he answered, he had; that he had sent them, directed to Mr. Chalmer, atlord Hawkesbury's office. And being asked, to whose account he had charged them? he said, to Mr. Reeves. And Mr. Owen being now apprized of the consequences of the answer he had made in his previous examination refusing to answer any questions that might be put to him,-the witness begged leave to retract that answer, and apologize to the committee; yet he still hoped the committee would not press him to give up the author, as, notwithstanding the confession he had made of being the publisher he thought it might tend to criminate himself, And your committee having, as they conceive, abundant proof from the body of evidence already before them, did not examine the witness farther.

Mr. Wright being again examined, was asked, whether he recollected a conversation with Mr. Reeves on the subject of a letter received by Mr. Reeves from Mr. Miles? he replied, yes; and that Mr. Reeves had shown it him. Being shown the proof sheets delivered in by Mr. Jones, he was asked, if he knew whether the separate paper included therein, was Mr. Reeves's hand-writing? he said, he believes it is; and that he is familiar with Mr. Reeves's hand-writing. And being asked, whether he had seen Mr. Reeves since his last examination by the committee? he replied, yes, and conversed with him on the subject of this publication. And the witness desired to add to his former evidence, as And your committee, conceiving any farthe committee had called on him to add any ther evidence respecting the person responsiexplanation he thought proper-that three or ble as author or publisher of the pamphlet in four proof sheets had been sent to other gen- question wholly unnecessary, did not proceed tlemen, and some corrections received from in the examination of many persons, whose them on the proof sheets; particularly he can testimony they have reason to believe would point out one in page 7, and another in still farther establish the facts stated by the page 12.-But on being shown the correction preceding witnesses. They have only to add, in page 7, he admitted the hand-writing to be in discharge of the duty committed to them Mr. Reeves's but from the blackness of it he by the House: viz. to inquire who was the ausupposed the words to be traced over writing thor of the pamphlet, intituled, "Thoughts on in pencil-the word "active," in page 12, he the English Government, &c." declared by thought not to be Mr. Reeves's hand-writing. the House to be" a malicious, scandalous and And the witness being asked, whether he seditious libel, containing matter tending to meant that he had sent these proofs to those create jealousies and divisions among his ma other gentlemen; and received the correc-jesty's loyal subjects; to alienate their affeetions back from them himself? he answered, no-that he only knew of them through Mr. Reeves, whom he supposed to have sent the proofs, and that it was to Mr. Reeves they were returned, and heladopted the corrections where he chose it. And being asked, who the person was that brought the pamphlet to him; he answered, the person who corrected the press-Mr. Reeves. And the witness desired to add, that as he had been asked on a former examination, whether the authority of the

tions from our present happy form of government, as established in King, Lords, and Commons; and to subvert the true principles of our free constitution; and that the said pamphlet is a high breach of the privileges of this House," That it appears to the committee, that John Reeves, esq. of Cecil-street, in the Strand, is the author, or has acted as the author of the said publication,

The said Report was ordered to be taken

« ZurückWeiter »