LONDON LIBERTY OF THE PRESS.

63

all probability, acquire precisely that plaintive cast and habit of grumbling, so observable among the inhabitants of this fine and prosperous island.

Extremes in government, says Hume, approach near to each other. In a firmly-established arbitrary government the ruler has no jealousy of the people, and allows them a considerable degree of liberty;-in a republic, none of the magistrates are so eminent as to alarm the people, and they are suffered to apply the law in all its strictness and severity. But in a limited government, like that of England, the magistrates and the people will be reciprocally jealous and watchful; the liberty of speaking and publishing will be carried as far as it can go without becoming a crime, and stop only at what the laws define libel and sedition. Such are the limits of the power of the magistrates and of the rights of the people; and they will both go to the utmost length of it. It has occurred to me, that if each public newspaper was divided between the two great national parties; if, for instance, a ministerial printer was obliged to send his sheets, printed on one side only, to one of the opposition, who would fill the other half with what he pleased, so as not to administer the dose of poison without its antidote, the people could hardly be so grossly deceived as they are now. A difficulty, however, would remain; the third party, of absolute reformers, who might not consent to divide with the whigs, and, like Mr W-m, would be reduced to pair off with themselves.

The report of the debates at the time of the parliamentary inquiry concerning the Duke of York, (an affair which reflects both honour and disgrace on this nation) having occasioned a great deal of scandal, and, as is alleged, having unfairly

64

LONDON-HOUSE OF COMMONS.

prepossessed public opinion, the ministers wished to spare themselves similar scandal on the occasion of the Walcheren inquiry, and one of them declared his intention of enforcing, day by day, the standing order by which any member can, whenever he pleases, and without assigning his reasons, send the public out of the gallery. On this imtimation, Mr Sheridan moved an amendment to the standing order, making a previous decision of the house necessary to clear the gallery. During the debate on Mr Sheridan's motion, Mr Windham denied that the report could be considered as very important to national liberty, since the custom is not of more than 25 or 30 years standing, and that, according to the professed friends of this same liberty, it has been on the decline ever since. In his zeal against the reports, Mr Windham attacked also the reporters, charging them with being a parcel of needy adventurers, bankrupts, footmen, &c. He received from one of them an excellent letter, shewing in strong, but temperate language, the injustice and illiberality of this personal attack. Mr Windham did not disdain justifying himself by an answer worthy of his talents and character; and ended by an offer, waving privilege, of that sort of satisfaction which one gentleman owes to another. I have this anecdote from a gentleman who had seen the letters.

The House of Commons has exhibited lately a very curious tragi-comic scene, which I do not introduce as characteristic of the manners of this singular people, being perhaps, even among them, unique in extravagance. An honourable member, a country gentleman, and, I believe, a county member, took offence at some slight he had experienced during the late examination in Parliament; and

LONDON-HOUSE OF COMMONS.

65

having made some intemperate remarks, supported by oaths, there was a motion, that the words of the honourable member should be taken down. This produced another explosion from the honourable member, who was ordered by the speaker to leave the house, which he obeyed with some difficulty. The House then decided that he should be put into the custody of the serjeant-at-arms. This resolution was no sooner announced to him, than he burst in again, furiously calling to the speaker that he had no right to send him into confinement; and that the little fellow in the great wig was the servant, and not the master of the House of Commons. The speaker, in consequence of the vote of imprisonment, was obliged to order the sergeant-at-arms to do his duty; and the latter, with the assistance of some other officers, succeeded in' carrying off his prisoner after an obstinate combat, -the honourable member being an Hercules ! What would the Parisians say to an affair like this in their Senat Conservatif, and of one of the members in grand costume giving battle to the doorkeeper on the senatorial floor? Two days after, the honourable member, having addressed a penitential letter to the speaker, was brought to the bar of the House to receive a reprimand; and, after paying the sergeant-at-arms for his services, was allowed to take his seat.

The legislature of the United States witnessed, some years ago, a scene still more edifying. An honourable member (a naturalized Irishman) actually spit in the face of another honourable member. Immediate consequences were prevented; but the day following the insulted member gave battle to his filthy colleague in the same place. They fought with fists, and with pokers and tongs,

66

LONDON-HOUSE OF COMMONS.

and rolled in the dust of the legislative floor before the representatives of the nation! The speaker had left the chair to give fair play.

April 2.-The Walcheren question was finally decided the day after I was at the House, or rather the next day after that, the debates having been protracted till long after day-light. A small majority of 21—that is, 253 for, and 232 against the ministers-approves all! This is certainly quite contrary to public opinion, which is altogether against ministers. The opinion of the House, no doubt is, in reality, not less so; but, besides those members who vote in every case for the ministers, there are many independent members who have voted on their side, without approving of their conduct in this instance, merely because they think them upon the whole the best ministers that can be had. Their power remains, however, much shaken; and if they should send Sir Francis Burdett to the Tower to-morrow, serious consequences may follow.

The members of Parliament seem to feel singularly relieved by the final termination of this Walcheren question. I have heard some of them speak with terror of a certain great book, where the evidences on the case were recorded, and which was the text of so many heavy and tiresome speeches. Their despair was at its height, when, at seven o'clock of the morning of the last day, after a whole night of debate, Sir Home P. was seen coming forwards with this same great book under

* The newspapers have given a list of members who have voted for and against ministers on the Walcheren question. Of 253 members who voted for, most had places; and of 232 members who voted against, not one had any place. This is certainly a most eloquent list, even allowing for some misrepresentation.

LONDON EXPULSION OF REPORTERS.

67

his arm! But this depression gave way to sudden mirth, on his introducing in his speech some remarks about bombs going to the Roompot.

The affair of the reporters of speeches in Parliament seems to me deserving of attention; as it serves to throw much light on the nice mechanism of this government, and its peculiar constitution and character. A certain body of lawyers (benchers of Lincoln's Inn), in order to shew their zeal against what one of the parties calls the liberty of the press, and the other, the unbridled license of the press, had, pending the late debates on the subject, passed a resolution, by which any person convicted of having ever written for the newspapers for hire, should be excluded from their body. The persons thus excluded presented a petition to Parliament praying relief. This gave rise to debates, in the course of which Mr Sheridan said, that he was ready to produce a long list of men, eminent, not only in the law and other professions, but some of them eminent in Parliament, who had begun their career as writers for the newspapers. He named Mr Burke, and several others; and he added, that of twenty-three gentlemen now employed in taking notes in the gallery of the House, eighteen had, to his own knowledge, been educated in the Universities; most of them had graduated, and several of them had obtained premiums, and other literary distinctions. He recalled the well-known, anecdote of the celebrated Dr Johnson: Two admired speeches of Lord Chatham having been compared to those of Cicero and Demosthenes, Johnson was asked which of the two manners, the Greek or the Roman, these speeches resembled most? I do not know, he answered; but this I can say, I wrote