of bufinefs, but he confidered it to be for the difpatch of the property of himfelf and his conftituents. When fuch things as these were paffed over unnoticed, he fhould be hurt to death to extend the utmost rigour of the House to offences comparatively fo inferior in danger and malignity. He hoped that other Gentlemen would turn their attention to the fubject to which he had alluded. The House might reft affured that if it did not protect itself against the libellous attacks of its own members, it would be in vain that it endeavoured to reprefs and punish the attacks of others. Members were protected in the Houfe from any consequences that might arife from what they faid, except what the House itfelf might inflict; but in return for that protection they ought not to be permit ted in other places to degrade and vilify, and libel the Houfe, and endeavour to overthrow what the people of this country feel to be the fafeguard of all that was dear to them. If no other member did propofe fome measure applicable to fuch cafes, he pledged himself to do it, and in doing it he should confider that he performed an effential fervice to the country. As to the prefent complaint he conceived that it was neceffary for the hon. Gentleman first to move for leave to withdraw it.

After fome converfation between the Speaker, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Percival, refpecting the form of withdrawing the motion, the Speaker ftated the mode to be→ "That the hon. Gentleman having expreffed a with to withdraw his complaint, the House alented, and the order was discharged."

Mr. Tierney faid, he rofe to make fome obfervations on what the right hon. Secretary had thrown out. The right hon. Gentleman had now come forward with a charge which he had carried fix months in his pocket, and it seemed rather to be produced as a fet off, than with any view of vindicating the honour of the Houfe. If the hon. Gentleman did really entertain fuch an opinion of the expreffion which he had imputed to him, he did not now fay whether juftly or not, why did he not, if the Houfe was fitting, complain of it in tis place, or if not, recommend it to the attention of the Attorney General? At the distance of time which had elapfed it could not be expected that he fhould be able to remember accurately what he had faid. He knew, however, that whatever fpeeches he made he was anfwerable for them, but it certainly was putting Gentlemen in an awkward fituation to bring forward fuch charges at fo great a diftance of time after

3

£ 2

the

the offence was faid to have been committed. As to what had been faid too of another hon. Gentleman, of whom he could never fpeak but with respect and veneration, that hon. Gentleman, he was convinced, could juftify himself from any charge of the kind which had been urged against him.

Mr. Dundas explained and faid, that he thought that the law at present was not adequate to punish libels which members of the Houfe in other places might be guilty of against the House, and that a legislative measure was neceflary to enable the House to punish fuch offences in its own members.

The Attorney General faid, that when Gentlemen on every occafion referred to the conduct which his Majefty's Attorney General ought to pursue, they did not confider the difficulty of the fituation refpecting what was to be done in cafe of libels upon the Houfe. What had been ftated in the newfpapers to have been faid by the hon. Gentleman oppofite on the 22d of June, 1798, he should confider himself guilty of a libel on the hon. Gentleman in imputing it to him. It was indeed a most grofs libel upon the Houfe of Commons, and on the hon. Gentleman, if falsely afcribed to him. If, however, gentlemen did not vindicate their own characters, what could be expected that he should do? The answer to any profecution which he could institute immediately was, that the House itself did not feel hurt at the circumftance; the Attorney General was the only perfon who had found any fault with the matter. He muft fay diftin&ily, therefore, that unJefs others did what belonged to them to do, it was impoffible for him to exercife with effect the duties of his particular office. It was neceflary that others thould co-operate with him to put an end to that fyftem which for feveral years had been purfued to degrade and vilify the Houfe, and to fap the foundations of the conftitution. How was it. poffible for him to ftep forward to profecute libels which the House itself totally difregarded? It was in vain for him without that to go into a Court of Juftice and profecute offenders. He would venture to fay, that the reafon why twelve men thought themselves juftified in acquitting perfons fo profecuted was, hat no complaint was made by the Houfe itfelf against what was profecuted as a libel upon it. What then did Gentlemen with the Attorney General to do in fuch circumstances? He alluded to fuch cafes as that libel which was afcribed to the hon. Gentleman himself. He likewife did fay farther, that it was intolerable that members of Parliament thould go to ale-houfes in Covent-garden and fay things which were

next day published in the papers, and, if fairly stated, were of the most libellous nature against the Houfe, No man, however, in the fituation of his Majesty's Attorney General, could do what his duty required of him, if the House itself endured fuch attacks and outrages from its own members. If the House continued to tolerate fuch things, it ought not to blame him, because in his fabordinate fituation he did not employ thofe means to check the evil which its own neglect rendered fruitlefs. Some blamed him for profecuting too much, and to this charge he was extremely indifferent, when he was conscious of difcharging his duty. Others (for whom he had great refpect) again found fault with him for not pro fecuting oftener; but, if the matter was duly confidered, Gentlemen: could fee that it was not with him that the fault lay. He felt great fatisfaction at what had been said by his right hon. Friend, and he hoped that it would be followed up. It was impoffible that others could be punished, if the members of the House were allowed to libel it with impunity. When Gentlemen every morning read libellous attacks which it was within their own province to notice, how was is to be expected that the Attorney General alone fhould make unavailing efforts to vindicate the dignity of those who did not avail themselves of the means they had of protecting the honour of the Houfe? He was convinced that the people of this country would feel grateful to thofe who, by their own conduct, endeavoured to vindicate that constitution under which they enjoyed fo much happiness, from the attacks of those who had long been labouring to compass its deftruction.

Mr. Tierney said, he had not complained of the article in queftion as a libel, but as a mifreprefentation of what he had faid, and in withdrawing it, he wished it to be understood that it was not becaufe he thought it ill-founded, or that it was in confequence of any compromife.

Mr. Dundas faid, that certainly there was no idea whatever of a compromife: it was a fuppofition which he entirely difclaimed.

The Solicitor General faid, that it was unjuft towards perfons who might be made the objects of fufpicion, for the /hon. Gentleman to fay that the article was paid for. He had read the article carefully, and it seemed to him be be a fair ftatement; certainly fairer than had appeared in any other paper or in the paper on the statement of which it commented.

Mr.

Mr. Tierney faid, that there was good reafon to think that the article was not written by any of the perfons who ufually report for The Times, and from the circumftance of three columns of that paper being facrificed to it, he did fufpect that it was paid for by fome individual.

The Solicitor General obferved, that the hon. Gentleman had not faid that he did not attribute it to his hon. Friend (Mr. Wilberforce). He thought he fhould mention whom he did fufpect.

Mr. Tierney faid, he must repeat what he had often faid before, that it was impoffible to go on, if members were thus to be called upon to name perfons. As to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wilberforce) he knew that he did not mean him, fo that it was unneceffary to fay that it was not to him that he afcribed the article.

Mr. W. Smith ftated to the Houfe what was certainly a breach of privilege of a very injurious nature to him perfonally. It was a paragraph which had appeared in the True Briton a few days after he had firft fpoken upon the Income Bill. It imputed to him the most difgraceful motives for his oppofition to that measure. In the House itself it was diforderly to attribute motives of any kind to Gentlemen. In this paragraph, however, his conduct was imputed to the most felfish motives. The fact was as follows: A few days ago a very refpectable perfon who collected taxes in his neighbourhood, called upon him for fome taxes-he (Mr. Smith) was talking to him of the danger which might exift of exaggerated statements of the fortunes of Gentlemen going abroad. This man replied, "Perhaps, fir, you don't know what has been faid of yourfelf," and then referred him to the paragraph. It was as follows:

"Mr. William Smith, who spoke at fuch length and with fuch elegant eloquence in the Houfe of Commons, is pretty well known to poffefs a fortune of at least 15000l. per annum, acquired by commerce: the affeffed taxes of this Gentleman do not exceed 3ool. per annum- —a stronger inftance need not be named in proof that expenditure is not the criterion of income, and that the mode (to which Mr. Smith fo ftrongly objects) in the new bill, is the fairest and moft equal plan to obtain the fum required for the defence of the country. Mr. Smith is one of the most violent of the feceders; his coming to the House on Friday, and exerting himself fo ftrongly in oppofition to the bill, is of course to be attributed folely to a fenfe of public duty."

As

As to the exaggerated statement of his fortune, it was a circumftance which to fome people would appear rather agreeable, but as a large fortune impofed duties upon a man, he did not with his wealth fhould be reprefented as more than it was, because it must induce men to conclude that he was deficient in the performance of thofe duties which the extent of his fortune impofed. The amount of his affeffed taxes too was mistated, for it was nearer 400l. than three. The paragraph was certainly falfe, and he did think it was malicious. Though he did not intend to make any complaint of the paragraph, he did not chufe to allow the statement to be altogether uncontradicted. In the courfe of the bill he had found that what he had faid had fometimes been misrepres fented, but he did not think maliciously. This attack, however, could not be confidered in the fame light. As to the queftion before the Houfe, he did not meant to interrupt what seemed the difpofition of the Houfe, that it should be withdrawn. If the debate had taken a different turn, there were fome things of which he intended to complain, but he fhould not now say any thing farther.

The complaint was then allowed to be withdrawn.

INCOME BILL.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved that this bill should be now read a third time.

Mr. Nicholls faid, he could not allow the bill to pass without giving it his negative. He did not approve of the new fyftem of finance now introduced, of which this measure was a part. He thought that the best way of raising the supplies was by a loan, the intereft of which was to be paid by taxes on confumprion. He did not think it poffible that the country gentlemen could carry this bill into execution. In the land tax they were friendly referees, but here they would be extorters of taxes for the public. The meafure could only be exccuted by tribunals devoted to the minifter. Next year, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman might come and call on the House, in pursuance of the principle of the bill, to furnish him with the means of puttting it in execution. It was, in his opinion, a great inroad on the conftitution. It would break the fpirit of the fubject, and, by a difclofure of men's circumftances, occafion the greatest inconveniences. The measure was brought in with great art: the lowest claffes were fpared; and it would fall comparatively light on the higher claffes. If it was fair that the fcale fhould rife from