much better title to both, than those for the government. No government, I will venture to say, ever published so few libels, and no government ever had provocation to punish so many. I could name a government in this country, under which those writings, which are now cried up, as founded upon the laws, and in the constitution, would have been punished as libels, even by the gentlemen who are now the warmest advocates for the liberty of the press, and for suffering the authors of those daily libels that appear in print, to pass with impunity. But I ask pardon for what I have said, that may appear foreign to the present consideration; I was led to it by what had been thrown out by the gentleman who spoke before."

It was then unanimously resolved, "It is a high indignity to, and a notorious breach of the privilege of this house; for any news writer in letters or other papers (as minutes, or under any other denomination) or for any printer or publisher, of any printed newspaper of any denomination, to presume to insert in the said letters or papers, or to give therein any account of the debates, or other proceedings of this house, or any committee, as well during the recess, as the sitting of parliament; and that this house will proceed with the utmost severity against such offenders."*

It is remarkable that this resolution passed without a single dissenting voice, and with little public animadversion. It is no less remarkable,

* Chandler.

that not one of our historical writers has taken notice of the debate, which is the reason I have deemed it not improper to give a place in these memoirs, to a transaction of such great historical importance. This resolution was not followed by any beneficial effect. On the contrary, it tended only still farther to excite public curiosity, while it rendered truth more difficult of access. It compelled the compilers of periodical publications to adopt a covert method of giving the debates, which made it more easy to falsify them, and it is a well known fact, that after this period, the accounts became less authentic than before.* The Gentleman's and the London Magazine, were the principal vehicles of the parliamentary debates. The Gentleman's Magazine published the debates in the senate of Lilliput, under the names of Lilliput and Brobdingnag, and the London Magazine gave a journal of the proceedings and debates in a political club, with Roman appellations. Each miscellany afterwards explained these fictitious titles in advertisements affixed to the respective volumes.

Tindal.

CHAPTER 51.

1738.

Proceedings in Parliament relative to the Spanish DepredationsPetitions-Examination of Witnesses-Case of Jenkins-Clamours of the People-Report of the Committee-Debates thereon-Firm and temperate Conduct of Walpole-Resolutions of both Houses.

THE

HE remainder of the session was principally devoted to the discussion of the Spanish depredations.

On the 3d of March, the minority commenced their attack. A petition prepared with great art and asperity, from divers merchants, planters, and others, trading to and interested in the British plantations in America, was presented to the house by Alderman Perry, recapitulating all that had passed in consequence of former applications, and declaring that the Spaniards still continued their depredations, and carried them to a greater height than ever.

This petition was referred to a committee of the whole house. Alderman Perry, then moved that the petitioners should be heard by themselves and counsel. The speaker having objected, as a point of form, that it never was the custom of the house to admit parties to be heard by themselves and counsel, proposed an amendment, by themselves or counsel. Sir John

Barnard and Sir William Wyndham objecting to this amendment, as no less captious and frivolous, than highly prejudicial to the petitioners; the minister said, “Sir, I must humbly beg leave to differ from both the honourable gentlemen. The judgment which we should form in this case, ought to be grounded on facts as they are fairly represented, not as they are artfully aggravated. Every gentleman, I believe, from his bare reflection on the injuries our merchants have received from Spain, feels within his breast an indignation arise, which there is no occasion to increase by the power of eloquence, or the arts of a lawyer. When gentlemen see an affair through the mist that passion raises before their eyes, it is next to impossible they should form a just judgment. I believe there is scarce any gentleman here, who is not acquainted with as much geography, and as much of the history, both of Britain and Spain, as may enable him, from a plain representation of facts, to judge whether the allegations in this petition be true or false. Now, Sir, are not the merchants themselves the most proper to give us this representation? Are they not most immediately interested in the facts? Where then, is the necessity of counsel? Or what occasion is there to work upon the passions, where the head is to be informed? I believe, Sir, every gentleman will find his heart as much affected by the artless accounts of the sufferers themselves, as by the studied rhetoric of the most eloquent counsel. However, Sir, I shall not take the liberty to

VOL. IV.

D

7

make any motion on this head, but entirely submit it to gentlemen's consideration."

The answer of alderman Willimot to these moderate remarks, will prove the temper by which the party in favour of the war were actuated.

"Sir, I think the petitioners ought to have liberty to be heard, not only by themselves and counsel, but if it were possible that we could indulge them in other advantages, we ought to do it. To talk of working upon the passions!

Can any man's passions be wound up to a greater height, can any man's indignation be more raised, than every free-born Englishman's must be, when he reads a letter which I received this morning, and which I have now in my hand. This letter gives an account that seventy of our brave sailors are now in chains in Spain. Our countrymen in chains! and slaves to Spaniards! Is not this enough to fire the coldest? Is not this enough to rouse all the vengeance of national resentment? And shall we sit here debating about words and forms, while the sufferings of our countrymen call loudly for redress?" Notwithstanding these intemperate effusions, the house agreed to the amendment proposed by the speaker, that the committee should be instructed to admit the petitioners to be heard, if they thought fit, by themselves or counsel.

On the same day, other petitions were presented, and referred to a committee of the whole house, in the same manner as that of the merchants. Sir John Barnard, after inveighing