eight o'clock. By the efforts of the sheriffs and constables, Piccadilly was nearly cleared by ten o'clock. But parties going off, in various directions, exclaimed, "Lights up!" The summons was instantly obeyed; and the town in a short time displayed a general illumination.

In consequence of Sir Francis Burdett's conduct that day, two members of the Westminster committee waited on him at Wimble don. Sir Francis said, that his conduct had been the result of the deepest reflection. Their enemies, he said, had been base enough to charge him with the blood that had been shed on the day of his commitment. And had he, by gratifying his personal vanity, been the cause of a single accident, he should have reflected on it with pain for the remainder of his life. The two committee men observed, that his determination ought to have been made known. To this Sir Francis replied, that it was absolutely necessary that there should be an expression of public sentiment; that this was now complete, and that his being in the procession could not have added thereto. It was generally observed, that Sir Francis had, on this occasion, observed the same artificial conduct towards his political friends, that he did towards the Serjeant at Arins. He might have made the same shew of resistance to the officers of the House of Commons on Friday morning that he did on Monday. But then there would not have been any popular commotion or tumult. Neither would this have taken place if he had announced his inVOL. LII.

lic on the prorogation of parliament. An expression of public sentiment he acknowledged might have been attended with fatal accidents. To these he exposed his friends but not himself. If such accidents had happened, he would have been as much to blame as if he had been present, and shared in the danger. In his retreat there was no sacrifice of personal vanity. This was rather more completely gratified by a display of his popu larity and power, though he was not present to animate the popu lace. Farther still, the popular opinion of the metropolis respecting the person, principles, and views of Sir Francis, had been sufficiently, and somewhat too emphatically, expressed already, by the occurrences of the 9th of April, when he was taken to the Tower. In a word it is difficult to believe that the display of public opinion, which Sir Francis encouraged, was not considered by him as more subservient to his own glory than the welfare of the nation.

From a review of all the petitions, debates, and proceedings respecting John Gale Jones and Sir Francis Burdett, it appears, and it is somewhat curious to observe, that a very considerable por tion of the time and attention of the House of Commons, this session, was taken up with questions, arising out of the practice of publishing, from day to day, accounts of the debates in parliament: a practice which, at the same time that it is productive of incalculable advantages to the cause of liberty in this, and even in other countries, cannot fail, on many occasions, to be a source of chagrin I

to

to the members of both houses. Nay, it may be presumed, that it excites chagrin and disgust in most of the speakers on most occasions. For a speech must be reported with great accuracy, and at great length indeed, if it meet with the full approbation of the author. But when to the extreme haste and hurry of writing, and the want of taste and judgment in some instances in the reporters, is added deliberate slight, or injustice, nay and misrepresentation, the iniquitous report becomes really an intolerable grievance. The attention of the House of Commons was called to this subject by Mr. Wallace, on the 16th of April. The way, he said, in which the speeches of some of its members were reported, was a direct breach of its privileges. He did not wish to object to the practice of reporting, nor was it his intention to follow up what he should now say with any motion. He only wished to awaken the house to the situation in which, in consequence of the indulgence of admitting stran gers to hear and report the debates, it now stood. He particularly meant to allude to a speech of Sir J. Anstruther's, a short time ago, which had appeared in a morning paper, in such a manner as to throw ridicule on the speaker, being accompanied with annotations, and some parts of it printed in a different character, so as evidently to betray the intention of the reporter. He had also remarked, that the speeches of some of the most distinguished members of that house were totally suppressed; and that, where any allusion was

afterwards made to the arguments or observations of those meers, such allusions were also omitted. In this manner did the proceedings of that house go before the public in a mutilated and partial form. If the debates were to be reported at all, they ought to be reported fairly. By a contrary practice, the most destructive system of misrepresentation might be introduced. He felt it to be his imperious duty to call on the house to resort to the measures which might seem necessary on the occasion, if what he had now stated was not taken as a sufficient warning.

Mr. Wortley hoped that some paper would set the example of reporting fairly. Here the conversation dropped.

In the hall where the national assemblies of France, the constituent, the legislative, and the conventional, held their sittings, there was a small gallery appointed for a corps of short-hand writers*, whose reports, thus in a manner authenticated, possessed nearly the authority of public records. This, which was in fact an appeal to the people, was congruous enough to a democracy. But were it adopted by the British legislature, it is probable that the political constitution actually existing, would soon suffer very considerable derangement. A kind of fourth power thus recognized would be introduced into the State. If all the speeches, too, were faithfully recorded by the `bench of tachygraphes, the reports would become so immeasurably voluminous, that they could not be circulated, as now, in newspapers, through which vehicles

alon, and not in a number of huge volumes by themselves, they produce an effect on the public mind.

On the other hand, there does not seem to be any other method of securing that impartiality and fidelity which Mr. Wallace and Mr. Wortley, and no doubt the other members, so naturally wished to be established. But, again, if strangers should be excluded from the sittings of parliament, which is scarcely, after so long a connivance, to be thought of by the members, and certainly not to be approved of by the public, the popular part of the Constitution would receive a deep, and, too probably, a fatal wound. It is the liberty of the press, and particularly that of publishing what passes in Parliament, that forms the grand counterpoise to the influence of the Crown, increased and still increasing, (not to say any

thing of growing luxury and corruption) through the greatness and prosperity of the empire.-It is observed, by an eminent French writer, "that examples never go out in the same way by which they came." When the House of Commons first connived at the introduction of booksellers, or their reporters, into the gallery, they were little aware of the consequences that were to follow this indulgence. The whole of these consequences have not, by any means, become apparent: a kind of satellites have fastened themselves on parliament, whom it is irksome and grievous to endure, but whom it would be dangerous, in different respects, altogether to exclude. It is a case of great embarrassment; and in all likelihood will be more and more felt to be so. The whole result of this new order, or power in the state, is by no means yet unfolded.

S the various matters con

A tained in

are closely linked together, in the order of cause and effect, and, as the whole arose out of the inquiry into the unfortunate expedition to the Scheldt, it has not been thought proper to interrupt that order in our narrative by the introduction of other debates and proceedings in Parliament, though prior in the order of time. We now proceed from views of past transactions, and debates, and occurrences to which these gave birth, to business of a prospective nature; and, first of all, to the important business of Finance.

House of Commons, Wednesday, May 16.--The House having resolved itself into a committee of ways and means, for examining the account of the public debt, and the other public accounts, usually referred to that committee preparatory to the budget, the Chancel

lor of the Exchequer rose to sub

committee a general statement of the supplies and ways and means of the year. These, he said, would not only afford the best means of forming a correct judgment how far the country was able to support its present burthens, but be the best answer to those who were accustomed to take gloomy views of the financial situation of the country. It would be highly satisfac tory to know, that such had been the produce of our revenue in that very year, when men of great weight and authority in that house anticipated a failure, that instead of the deficit they apprehended, there actually had been a very considerable increase. He should therefore, without farther preliminary observation, proceed to state the supplies already voted, and also the ways and means by which he proposed to lower them

SUPPLIES,