ways and means; and that it was specifically stated in those resolutions, that it was expedient to make an addition to the sinking fund.

Mr. S. Wortley said, that as it seemed not to be the disposition of the House to receive these petitions, he gave notice, that when the consolidation bill went into the committee, he would take the sense of the House on the proposed increase in the duty on foreign wool.

Lord Lascelles said, he should certainly oppose a measure, which threatened to impose a duty on the raw material of a manufacture, which was, at the present moment, peculiarly incapable of sustaining any increased pressure.

Mr. Calcraft denied that the duties against which the petitions were directed were, fairly speaking, for the supplies of the year. In the first place, they were not sums annually voted. In the next place, the supplies of the year were specific services, for which sums were voted. The duties in question were for the purpose of adding to the sinking fund, and consequently not for the supplies of the year. If, therefore, by any favourable construction, the petitions could be received, he trusted they would not be rejected.

Mr. Robinson observed, that whenever a loan had been raised, a sinking fund was provided for, and therefore that the present duties were on a footing precisely similar to the duties which for many years had been imposed, and against the bills for imposing which, the House had never allowed petitions to be presented.

Mr. Dickinson, as the sense of the House appeared to be against receiving the petition, obtained leave to withdraw it. Lord Milton said, he had two petitions to present against the proposed duty on wool, and notwithstanding the recent decision of the House, he would endeavour to show that they ought to be received. It had been stated by the highest authority in the House that such petitions could not be received. By an entry in the Journals for 1733, it appeared that on the 10th of April a petition was presented by the sheriffs of London, against the excise duties (the bill for imposing which had been read a first time), praying to be heard by themselves or counsel against the second reading of the bill. A debate arose, and after a recurrence to a number of precedents, the result was, that the petition should be allowed to lie on the table until

the second reading of the bill, but that the petitioners should not be heard either by themselves or by counsel. A division took place on an amendment moved to the last proposition, when the numbers were 197 to 214. He would feel satisfied if the petitions were at least read; that the House might be in possession of the arguments against the proposed duty. The petitions which he had to present, were the one from Wakefield, the other from Dewsbury.

Mr. Huskisson conceived that the petitions were similar to those which had been already withdrawn. The noble lord might have found, upon a little examination, that the case to which he had alluded was not one precisely in point, as the law respecting the excise was one of regulation, not of an additional tax. That this tax was for the support of the sinking fund, was an erroneous impression; it was like any other tax for the ways and means of the year, and he conceived the House could not receive the petition unless they admitted the principle of receiving petitions against proposed taxes.

Mr. Brougham could not agree with the construction which Mr. Huskisson had put upon the precedent. If the petition of the city of London had been objectionable, as being against a proposed tax, it would not have been ordered to lie upon the table till the second reading. In 1720 a petition was received from the soapmakers and chandlers of Bristol against an increased tax upon soap. This petition was not allowed to lie upon the table, but it was read, and he conceived the same should be adopted in the present case.

Lord Castlereagh said, it was better that there should be a rule against receiving petitions in cases like the present, than to receive, and then reject them. In the latter case, it would appear as if the House had decided against the prayer of the petition.

Mr. S. Wortley said, there was a note in Hatsell to the precedent alluded to by his noble friend, which did away the force of it. On that occasion the Speaker stated, it had been the practice for more than a century to make the city of London an exception from the rule; for when the sheriff of London was allowed to appear at the bar with a petition, the House could not be supposed to know the nature of that petition until they heard it read.

Mr. Brougham contended, that the precedent in question went farther than the

"receiving a petition and allowing it to be read-it allowed it also to lie on the table. The question, that the said petitions be brought up, was then put and negatived.

COMPLAINT AGAINST "THE TIMES" NEWSPAPER.] Mr. Canning said, he felt it his painful duty to call the attention of members to a case in which their privileges were materially involved. The duty was in itself painful, but he felt the more reluctant to discharge it as he himself was personally concerned. No man could be more sensible than he was of the expediency of suffering all that passed within the walls of that House (whether by permission-the propriety of which he would not inquire into; or by connivance, as was the case at present) to be communicated to their constituents and the public at large. He was fully aware of the benefits which were to be derived from it in either way; but he thought the latter was the better mode, as the House would, as they now did, hold within their own hands the power of an immediate check upon any abuse of it. He was convinced that such an indulgence as he alluded to was liable to abuse, and of course to casual error; but whenever a gross and wilful mis-statement of what had occurred was sent before the public, it was the duty of the House to interfere, to assert its own rights, and correct the errors into which the public might have been led. For five and twenty years, during which he had had the honour of sitting in that House, he had never complained of any abuse or incorrectness which might have found its way into the reported accounts of what occurred there. He would except one occasion-the last session, when he had to make a complaint of the same newspaper which he was now about to bring to the notice of the House. On that occasion he had felt it his duty to call the attention of the House to a gross mis-statement of what had passed within its walls-a mis-statement, in which not he particularly, so much as the House in general, was concerned. At the time that he had called the attention of the House to this circumstance, he declined taking any further step upon it, in the hope that the misrepresentation was accidental, and that the notice of it would have operated as a warning against any recurrence of the same nature. He was now sorry to find that that warning was without effect. He was sorry to observe, that a statement (VOL. XL.)

had appeared in the same paper, which the most candid mind must admit was a gross misrepresentation. Indeed, the misrepresentation of which he had to complain was so gross and malignant as to leave no doubt that it was not the effect of mistake. The House would recollect, that on the debate on Tuesday last, an hon. member (Mr. Hume) had delivered an opinion upon the subject then before it. He (Mr. Canning) was not in the House at the time, but he came in before the debate was ended, and finding that, so far from any thing warm or personal having occurred, the House was in a state of langour, he could not of course imagine that any thing referring personally to himself had been uttered, and therefore had no explanation to give; but what was his surprise, when on the following day he found, that in the report of the debate in "The Times" newspaper, the hon. member had been made to say, what he (Mr. C.) should then read to the House. The hon. gentleman, speaking of the economy which should be observed, was made to say-" Instead of that, he saw a military mania prevalent, that cost the country incalculable sums; bands, trapped in scarlet and gold, were daily paraded through the streets, as if to mock the squalid poverty of the lower orders." Here the editor put in a remark of laughter from the ministerial benches.' The report then went on, and the hon. member was made to say, "Ministers might laugh, but let them look at the other side of the picture; let them survey the misery of the poor, industrious wretches at Carlisle; or even of the unhappy beings they meet in our streets, and he believed there would be found but one man among them who would still keep a smile upon his countenance-and that would be a smile of self-congratulation from a right hon. gentleman (Mr. Canning), that by habitually turning into ridicule the sufferings of his fellow-creatures, he had been able to place himself so far above their unhappy condition." To this was added, the words 'continued cheers.' Now, if any hon. member would get up, and declare upon his honour, that if the hon. gentleman had not said the words imputed to him, the report which he had read was any thing else than a gross and malignant misrepresentation, he would give up any further notice of it. Imagining at the moment that so gross a misrepresentation would not have been (4 D )

made, he had thought it right to make an inquiry respecting it. The first step which he took was, to apply to the hon. gentleman opposite, and to inquire through a noble lord, whether he had or had not used the language attributed to him. From the noble lord through whom the communication was made, he had received such an answer as the time and the circumstance of the hon. member's being then in attendance on an election committee permitted. He stated, that from the recollection which he retained of what he had said, he was convinced he could not have preferred such a charge; but as he had not seen the paper, he could not answer positively with respect to it. At the desire of the hon. gentleman, he (Mr. | Canning) sent the newspaper in question to him; and the result had been, that the hon. gentleman had sent him a most candid, a most honourable, a most satisfactory, and a most gentlemanly explanation of the words which he had used, and had stated in it, that the representations of the newspaper were totally incorrect. In consequence of this disclaimer, he had given the hon. gentleman notice, on Saturday, that he should bring this breach of privilege before the House. The House would see, that as far as he was himself concerned, he could have no satisfaction in bringing before it any thing which related to himself personally: of what came from a respectable source, of what rested upon good authority, he might think it requisite to demand an explanation; but that which originated from a source not respectable, that which rested on such authority as that of the wretch, whoever he might be, who had penned this paragraph, was far below contempt in his estimation. But though he was satisfied as far as he himself was personally concerned, he had a duty to discharge towards the House. There might be many members less hardened by experience than he was, to attacks of such a nature-men, who would rather bear a misrepresentation in 'silence, than call the attention of parliament to it; it was in their behalf that he called upon the House to take notice of the libel which had been published against one of its members-a libel, which was the more infainous, because the author of it, instead of putting it forth as his own opinion, put it forth as the opinion of another, and thus attempted to make the name of an hon. member a cover for the slander which he had not himself the

courage to avow. If such a breach of privilege was allowed to go unchecked, it would be in the power of any individual to publish to the world any slander which he might think proper, regarding its members. For, what were the resources to which he could appeal? The courts of law were good for nothing: if he carried it to the Court of King's Bench, he would not be allowed to produce evidence to show whether what had been imputed to the hon. gentleman had been said or not; and although he might gain satisfaction for the act, he might gain it from an innocent person, who had given a true report. As little could the House afford him redress, unless the newspaper was in fault, and unless such an admission were made, as on this occasion had been made by the hon. gentleman. Thus the slandered person was either to acquiesce in the slander, or was to have recourse to that direct personal appeal, which he should not mention in any plainer terms in that House. If this were the case, it would be left in the power of the meanest scribbler who disgraced the press to traduce any two of the most hon. members that adorned parliament by his calumnies, and thus reduce them to that unpleasant alternative to which he had previously alluded. He therefore could not help asking the House, whether it was not their duty to interpose and prevent the occurrence of any such mischief as that which he had contemplated. Every person might not be possessed of the same candour and liberality as the hon. member to whom he had addressed himself; he might have made an appeal to a man not at all deficient in feeling, but who from a principle of pride or of carelessness, might have answered that, when their speeches were once delivered, they knew nothing, and cared nothing about the newspaper reports of them. He could not have collected any evidence on the point from those who heard the obnoxious assertions, because every man to whom he had applied would have known the object for which he was collecting it, and no man who did not possess the very strongest nerves would give such information as would lead two individuals to that extremity which was not to be mentioned. He thought, therefore, that the House were imperiously bound to take such measures as would prevent the recurrence of such a misrepresentation as that of which he now felt it his duty to complain, In

laying the paper which contained it on the table, he was following that line of conduct which his conscience suggested to him to be correct, and was not gratifying any private views or feelings of his own; indeed, for himself, he had nothing to ask; it was for the protection of others rather than of himself-it was for the dignity of the House-it was for the security of its debates, that he pressed the House to take the subject into their most serious consideration. He thought it only fair to inform the House, that there was in the newspaper of that morning an apology or an atonement for the mis-statement which had appeared. He would read the paragraph to the House. The right hon. gen. tleman then read the following paragraph from The Times of yesterday:" We regret to state, that a considerable error crept into our account of Mr. Hume's speech on bringing up the report of the committee on the finance resolutions on Tuesday evening. In the great mass of matter which must every night be got ready for the press, after the debates in the two Houses are ended, or while they are going on, it is impossible that mistakes should not sometimes occur. We can only say, that it is our most anxious desire to send forth a just and impartial representation of what passes; and whenever we fail of success, such are still the pains we take, that we should hardly have to solicit indulgence upon the plea of incuria fundit; our failure must be laid to the imperfection of our common nature humana parum cavit natura. Mr. Hume spoke with much feeling and animation of the distresses of the poor, and observing, as we understood by our reporter, a smile upon the ministerial benches, is represented by us as taxing only one right hon. gentleman, Mr. Canning, with indulging in laughter on so serious a subject. That right hon. gentleman, we have since learned was not present. We shall not now repeat the offensive passage for the sake of correcting it suffice it to say, that Mr. Canning was not attacked as described in our report. We are enabled, from the most authentic source, to lay before our readers the passage which was so misunderstood by our reporter." After he had finished reading it, he resumed.-If the present were a case of omission, or of accidental mistake, he should be the last person in the world to complain of it; but what incuria, what error, or what mistake could lead the author of this calumnious

paragraph to the belief that he (Mr. C.) was present at the debate, and that he had joined in a laugh against the sufferings of the poor? The paragraph of which he complained was a long and not a hastily written paragraph; indeed, it was most artificially constructed, and could not have been the production of a mere moment's consideration: it represented him receiving as sharp a rebuke as could be made, without saying a single word in reply; and depicted him with a smile flickering on his lips, whilst bearing a chastisement, too severe for any being with the feelings of a man to have borne with tranquillity. And yet this was to be represented as a fault of omission, or as an error arising from the imperfection of human nature! That it was a fault of omission or of accident, no man could believe; that it might arise from the imperfections of human nature, he was willing to allow; for he had always counted amongst them malignity and falsehood. So far as himself and the House were concerned, this apology was a greater offence than the original misrepresentation. The House was to be thanked, forsooth, that its debates were so fairly and faithfully given! its gratitude was to be granted, because errors were so seldom admitted! Instead of complaining of them when they occurred, the House was to be indebted to the reporters for their general accuracy; and its members were to have no reason to complain of them, even though they were held up to the ridicule and detestation of the country! He wished to press upon the notice of the House, what had been the effect of this error, this mistake, this imperfection of human nature. The paragraph had first appeared on Wednesday last, and had not been contradicted till this present Monday: in the meantime, every Sunday paper, and every provincial paper, had copied the paragraph, with this lying representation. If this late apology were considered an extenuation instead of an aggravation of the original offence, the House would be abdicating its power, its right, and its duty, of seeing that the communications which were made of its proceedings to the country were fairly and honestly made; that power they had not abdicated-that right, though not insisted on, they still maintained, and that duty they could never abandon, if it was true, that the privileges which we enjoyed were the privileges of the Commons of England, given to us not as an enjoyment or