1. - "cieties, abetting domestic treason, "and assisted by the co-operation "of the revolutionary power of "France, would, he verily believes, "have effected the destruction of "the British constitution, had not "the wise and efficient measures, "brought forward by that admini"stration in which lord Melville "held so conspicuous a situation, "been adopted, and this honoura "ble house would not, in that case, "perhaps, have been now in existence, either to censure lord Melville, or to pardon your petitionThat if any thing could increase your petitioner's regret, "it would be, its being supposed "that the objectionable paragraph 66 was directed also against the "right honourable the speaker of "the house of commons; that your 66 petitioner has no hesitation to de"clare, that no idea was ever more "remote from his mind; and, that 66 your petitioner would be the very "last person to insinuate any thing "disrespectful of a character, whom Oracle," which was as follows:"To the honourable the house of "commons, in parliament assem"bled. The petition of Peter Stu"art, printer, and publisher of a "morning newspaper, entitled The "Daily Advertiser, Oracle, and "True Briton, most humbly shew"eth, that, for the publication of "that part of the paper of Thursday last, deemed highly offensive to "this honourable house, he feels "the deepest regret; and that, al"though certain expressions in that paragraph be indiscreet and un"guarded, and such as have incur"red the displeasure of this important branch of the British constitu"tion; yet, that your petitioner "humbly hopes, on this acknow"ledgment of his sincere sorrow, "this honourable house, in the "plenitude of its condescension and "liberality, will be pleased to par"don him for a transgression, solely "attributable to the hasty compo"sition of a newspaper, and not "to any deliberate design of offend"ing this honourable house. That "your petitioner is emboldened to "solicit your indulgence and for"giveness, on his well founded assurance, that, during the several "years in which he has conducted a newspaper, it has uniformly been is principle and pride zealously to support the character and dig. nity of the house of commons; and, that it has frequently fallen "to his lot to have vindicated both "from the charges of societies, expressly instituted to bring them into public disrepute and con"tempt. In any observations which "your petitioner may have publish"ed, on the conduct of lord Melville, he could not but bear in mind, that the views of those so 66 er. he, in conjunction with the whole "nation, highly esteems as a private "gentleman, and most profoundly venerates as the head and public "organ of this honourable house. "That your petitioner most humbly hopes this honourable house will "consent to his release; and your petitioner will ever pray, &c. "P. Stuart." The petition being read, the ho. nourable baronet moved, "that the "said Peter Stuart be brought to the "bar and be discharged." Mr. Windham called the atten. tion of the house to this petition, and asked if any thing like it had ever been known? He left it to the discretion of the honourable baronet, whether, after hearing this G 2 extraordinary extraordinary petition, he would persevere in his motion. Sir H. Mildmay said, he really saw nothing improper in it, and as to the credit given to lord Melville, and those who acted with him, for those measures which enabled the house to preserve its place, he had no hesitation for himself to avow the same principle: he should, therefore, persevere in his motion. Mr. Fox thought it unnecessary and improper to introduce, into a petition of this nature, any opinion respecting the former conduct of lord Melville, unless it were for the purpose of attacking those who brought him before the house: he could not conceive how such a defence could be admitted; unless ministers meant that those who were brought before them, for libelling that house, might plead, as a justification, they had uniformly supported administration, and had only libelled those who composed the minority. The Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted, that if the petitioner stated generally that he had been in the habit of supporting administration, it would be no justification of him; but being accused of a libel on the house of commons, it was material to him to shew, that he was so far from being in the habit of libelling them, he had always before supported their resolutions and decisions. The language of the petition was not that which appeared to him most proper, but it was almost the common fault of those connected with the press, that they assumed a loftier tone, and perhaps gave themselves more importance, than naturally belonged to them. As to the danger of the times, in which the petitioner said he had supported the house of commons, and that the administration, of which lord M ville was one, had been the salvat of the country, the opinion was singular: it had been, for years, prevailing opinion of both house parliament, and of a considera portion of the people of the co try. With the exception of his fessions of respect for the speal and esteem for the character of Melville, the rest of the petit breathed nothing but sorrow contrition. Mr. Windham requested the ho to observe, how small a part of petition was taken up with the la guage of sorrow and contrition; a on account of the character a complexion of the performance together, he should feel it necess to move an amendment. But, ou suggestion of Sir William Burroug the speaker acquainted the right nourable gentleman, that it was competent for him to move a amendment, as he had spoken fore on the debate. Mr. Grey considered the petit to have been written altogether a state of defiance and accusatio It was an attack upon their char ter as judges, sitting in a court justice, and calling them intem rate, partial, and presumptuous. considered the petition as an agg vation of the original offence, a thought that the punishment ought be increased. W Mr. Canning said, he saw no cessity for censuring the petition for merely answering a charge th had been brought against him. the petitioner had defended, mistaken zeal, the man who h been the victim of the anger of th house, was it unfair for him, in ex nuation, to shew the causes whi had produced that zeal? He wishe however, that the editors of papers would take notice, and receive warning, if this mode were persisted in, that a great change had taken place in the system of forbearance hitherto adhered to, and regulate their conduct accordingly. Mr. Sheridan saw nothing inconsistent in the conduct of his honour. able friend, (Mr. Grey). He had, on a former night, given way to a disposition for lenity, but now, when be found that disposition had been abased, there was no inconsistency in thinking that this lenity had been misplaced, and that some severer punishment should take place. He felt sorry that the petition had been To worded that he could not give it his support, and should therefore gree in the vote of his honourable friead. Mr. Whitbread asked, was it to be endured that the editor of a newspaper should tell the house of commons, that he had sat in judgment upon them and their proceedings, and pronounced his applause or his censure on the different parties in parliament as he thought fit? He did not, howeven, wish any severity of punishment on the present occasion, but recommended to the bonourable baronet to withdraw this petition, for the purpose of preparing another, that might be less exceptionable. Mr. Wilberforce did not think that the dignity of the house should be engaged in discussing what sort of petition it would be right to receive; but certainly this was not so. It was deficient in the temper and view of it. It was not in that style of expression which ought to be presented to the house of commons in behalf of a person who had offended its diguity. It was a case in which the petitioner ought to make a gen- The solicitor general, at consider. Mr. Peter Stuart was then brought to the bar, and having received a reprimand from the speaker, was discharged. Mr. Sheridan then rose, and observed, that previously to the vote of thanks he was about to move, it might be necessary to take a view of the conduct of the commissioners of naval enquiry, as also to give a sketch of what the different reports contained. The commissioners were professedly selected out of the talents, the respectability, and the worth of the country, and it ought to be understood that their conduct had been such as to entitle them to unequivocal approbation and confidence. Mr. Sheridan then examined the contents of each particular report, and concluded with moving as G 3 fellows: follows: "That it appears to this "house, that the commissioners ap"pointed by an act of the 43d of "the king, to enquire into the irre. "gularities and abuses committed "by persons employed in the sc"veral naval departments, have, as "far as appears from their reports "hitherto made, exerted themselves "with great diligence, ability, and "fortitude, and that the whole of "their conduct, in the execution of "the arduous duties entrusted to "them, is entitled to the approba❝tion and thanks of this house."The motion being put, The chancellor of the exchequer rose, not to object to the motion, but to observe that the committee had minutely considered one report only; he therefore put it to the house, whether the vote of thanks would not be much fuller, and more comprehensive, if it were given after the reports were fully considered and digested? But it appeared that those commissioners had refused the opportunity of explanation to several persons, whose characters were affected by their reports, which would not have been the case had such opportunity been afforded. He would, however, leave to the feelings of the house, the propriety of distinctly and minutely examining each particular point alluded to, as also, the several reports before the house, previously to a vote of indiscriminate approba tion. Mr. Fox thought the charges brought against the commissioners, by the right honourable gentleman, could not in any man's mind be deemed to apply in any shape against this motion, for the right honour able gentleman could not vouch for one of the statements he had made. This motion was necessary the merit of the men, and the gr titude of the people, demanded With a degree of fortitude truly traordinary, they had pursued d linquency through all the obstru tions of high office, and the frowns power, and had detected and expos the criminality of one of the pri cipal officers of the crown. A long conversation took pla between the chancellor of the e chequer, Mr. Fox, sir A. S. Han mond, Mr. Rose, admiral Marl ham, &c. respecting those imputi tions on the conduct of the com missioners, when Mr. Rose observed that although he felt his objection to some parts of the conduct of th commission to be well founded, } would not oppose the motion, i the sense of the house seemed to b in its favour. Mr. Wilberforce highly approve the conduct of the commissioners and thought them fully entitled t the thanks of the house and of th country; but as all the reports ha not undergone thorough investiga tion, he proposed, as an amend ment, that the words "the whole might be omitted in the motion. H was of opinion that the motion, s amended, would have a more dis tinct meaning, and prove more ac ceptable to the commissioners them selves. He therefore moved tha the words "the whole of" be struc out of the motion. A long discus sion, on the propriety of the propose amendment, was now entered inte after which Mr. Sheridan rose t reply. He took a general view o the arguments and objections o those gentlemen who had shew themselves hostile to the origina motion, but he would not conser to abandon the word "whole" th the manner proposed. He was, however, disposed to meet the ideas of the honourable gentleman who proposed it, if he were allowed to amend the motion himself. Mr. Wilberforce declared his readiness, with the consent of the house, to withdraw his amendment, which was accordingly withdrawn. Mr. Sheridan withdrew the original motion, and proposed the following: "That it appears, that "the commissioners appointed by "an act of the 43d year of his ma"jesty's reign, to enquire and ex"amine into any irregularities, "frands, or abuses, which are, and "bave been, practised by persons "employed in the several naval "departments therein mentioned, "have, as far as appears by the re"ports which they have hitherto "made, exerted themselves with "great diligence, ability, and for"itude; and that their conduct, in "the execution of the arduous du"fies entrusted to them, entitles "them to the warmest approba"tion and encouragement of this "house." The question was then put on the motion, as altered, and carried. He then moved, "that this reso"lution be communicated by Mr. "Speaker to the said commissioners," ," which was agreed to, and the house adjourned. On the 3d of May, Mr. Leycester delivered a message to the lords, from the house of commons, requesting their lordships permission for lord viscount Melville to attend a meeting of the house of commons, to be examined respecting the 10th report of the naval commissioners, and was informed that their lordships would send an answer by a messenger of their own. 66 Lord Hawkesbury then moved, "that the standing order, which "imported that no peer of the "realm should attend the house of commons, or any committee "thereof, to answer matters of "charge or accusation against them"selves, on pain of being committed "to the tower during the pleasure " of the house," which being done, his lordship adverted to the circumstances upon which that order was made, and, after stating that the message clearly referred to the points of accusation against lord Melville, contained in the 10th report of the naval commissioners, moved "that the (6 message be referred to a commit"tee of privileges, and the clerk be "ordered to furnish them with such precedents of similar cases as may have occurred.” Lord Darnley objected to the motion, as it tended to throw dif ficulties in the way of public justice. Lord Hawkesbury disclaimed any such idea. The duke of Norfolk said, that though the house could not compel lord Melville to attend a committee of the house of commons, he could have no objection to giving him permission to do so, if he thought proper. The lord chancellor contended for the propriety of upholding the privileges of that house, and that they should not be unmindful of the solemn resolution taken in 1673, which prohibited, under severe penalties, the attendance of any member of that house, if matters of accusation against him were in question. He was, therefore, for refering it to a committee of privileges, and, after some conversation, the motion of lord Hawkesbury was agreed to. In H |