ham seems to look upon it as rather a secretory one, of which he is ashamed.

The freedom of the press is considered in England as the palladium of national liberty; on the other hand, the abuse of it is undoubtedly its curse. It is the only plague, somebody has said, which Moses forgot to inflict on Egypt. This modern plague penetrates like the vermin of the old, into the interior of families, carrying in its train defamation and misery. The press diffuses as to politics as many falsehoods as truths; and although it furnishes means of refutation, apparently reciprocal, and,' from the shock of opinions, the real truth might be expected to come at last, it is in fact reciprocity all on one side; for I find every one reads only the papers of his party, strengthening his errors and prejudices instead of removing them. The constitution leaves to every man the use of his pen as of his sword, and he may be punished for a libel as for a murder; but the one crime is more difficult to prove than the other, it is susceptible of so many different degrees, and takes such various shapes, that it commonly escapes the grasp of the law, although its consequences are infinitely more general and extensive. The evil is, no doubt, easier pointed out than its remedy. But whatever evils may result from the freedom of the press, it is not now to be suppressed, being so closely interwoven in the English manners and national constitution, as not to be torn from it without destroying the whole texture: and, notwithstanding its enormous inconveniences, it is impossible to deny, that this people owes much to this freedom. It has tasted of the tree of knowledge, and cannot now return to its primitive state of ignorance and in

nocence.

LONDON-LIBERTY OF THE PRESS.

61

The consequence of this general publicity is, a sort of transparency of the body-politic, which allows you to see many wonderful, and some alarming natural processes: the labour of the stomach and of the intestines, and the suction of innumerable hungry vessels, carrying health and strength, or disease and death, in incessant streams of blood and humours, to every part of the body. Any derangement is, of course, observed immediately; and the cause, as well as the seat of the disorder, being obvious, the hand and the knife can penetrate, cleanse, and remove, without danger, under the guidance of the eye. A body so formed and constituted would have the chance of a long and healthy life, although it might not be a joyful one; and the mind appertaining to that body would, in 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 with, out 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. Windham, would be reduced to pair off with themselves.

The report of the débates 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 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 intimation, 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

LONDON-HOUSE OF COMMONS.

63

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 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 sergeant-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-atarms 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 mem bers 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, 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 con

* 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.