§ Mr. Humesaid, he rose to complain of a gross misrepresentation which had that morning appeared in a newspaper, relative to a motion which he had made yesterday for a return of the sums paid to the different newspapers by government for advertisements, &c. So far from finding fault with the animadversions of a public journal, he thought it its province to advert to all public subjects, but, at the same time, as the character of a public man was public property, the writer should take care that his animadversions were not founded on a gross 422 misrepresentation. That misrepresentation was in a note, on a report of his speech in "The Morning Chronicle." He had a regard for that journal, from the correctness with which it collected information, and the impartiality with which it communicated that information to the public. The note was as follows:—"We take this opportunity of addressing a word or two to Mr. Hume. How does he know that 'The Times Newspaper publishes more than any other two papers in England? However deeply he may be versed in the concerns of The Times Newspaper, he may not be equally so in that of each of the others, and at all events the public would not have thought less of his judgment, if he had not laid claim to any such minute knowledge. His argument certainly did not require that he should; and as The Times takes special care, from time to time, that the world shall know how prosperous they are, it was hardly necessary for him to come for ward in parliament to back their affidavits.—For the sake of other papers of which the rank and character may be less firmly established than our own, and which could not with equal safety approach such, a subject, we have to observe, that ministers have been guilty of an evident dereliction of duty, in not objecting to the unwarrantable returns respecting newspapers, moved for by Mr. Hume. No principle can be more clear than this, that the knowledge of the private concerns of individuals, which the law gives to government for purposes of revenue ought never to be made use of to the injury of those individuals in the way of their business. If the income tax had been in vigour, Mr. Hume might with as much propriety have moved for a return of the income of any individual with whom government had contracted, or might enter into a contract, on the ground of there by obtaining matter of crimination against ministers.—We will deal frankly with Mr. Hume. We would advise him once for all to let newspapers alone, if he, wishes to render his labours serviceable to the public. We have reported his statement as he delivered it, because we never allow ourselves to garble or intentionally to disfigure speeches delivered either in parliament or elsewhere. We could refer him, however, by way of contrast (to take one out of many instances), to a speech of his own on the 27th February, in which his compliment to a certain morning paper, which he 423 named, is carefully garbled in a certain other morning paper, which We shall not name; a circumstance which those who have a feeling for more than sums and numbers will know how to appreciate."—He had no concern with the quarrels between newspapers. He had not, as was stated, moved for any papers with a view to private transactions, but only to ascertain in what manner the public money paid for advertisements by the public offices was disposed of. He had no anxiety to pry into the private affairs of any one, and no such motion with that object was made by him. The papers laid on the table had been moved for by a noble lord, (J. Russell), and not by him. He had no connection with that motion, and the application of his words was unwarrantable and misplaced. He did not wish to make a formal complaint to the House, nor would he do so of any newspaper as long as he had a seat in parliament; but, as far as regarded his, public character, he was anxious that so gross and false a mis-statement should not go forth to the public.