Lord Sidmouth, on moving the second reading of the bill, congratulated their lordships on the progress that had been made in effecting the purpose for which they had been called together, this being the last of the bills which it had been thought necessary to propose. Their lordships and the other House of Parliament had met the difficulties and dangers of the crisis in a manner the best calculated to stem them; and the measures that had 1583 received the assent of the Crown had already had a beneficial effect in correcting a part of the evils against which they were directed. It was deeply to be regretted that the evils to be provided against should arise out of the abuse of what were undoubtedly the privileges and the rights of the people—the freedom of meeting to discuss grievances, and the freedom of the press. With regard to the first, every care had been taken not to interfere with the legitimate right of meeting; and the fact was, that every meeting that could be made available for the purposes of actual free discussion, was not only left untouched by that act, but by the regulations of the act they were rendered more available to the lawful purposes for which they were intended. To regulate the public press was certainly a matter of greater difficulty, so as to steer clear of trenching upon its freedom. But to the objections in certain quarters, that it was better to do nothing, he could not agree. The present bill proceeded upon the unhappily notorious fact, that blasphemous and seditious publications had been circulated to a great extent; and when it was said that these publications would find their antidote, and that it was unnecessary to restrain them by law, he would refer their lordships to a great statesman, who had observed how dangerous it was for a man to try how much poison his constitution would bear. That the poison circulated by the publications which this bill was intended to restrain, must produce an effect greatly to be deplored, could scarcely be doubted, when it was considered that in every cottage in some districts of the kingdom (he thanked God not in all) were these poisonous publications disseminated. His lordship described briefly the provisions of the bill. The great obstacle had been, the difficulty in finding out the actual printer or publisher of these blasphemous and seditious works, he generally contriving to issue his works only to those upon whom he could depend. Thus five informations had been filed against Carlile, as the vender of a seditious publication, because Sherwin, the printer, could not be found. The regulations in the bill, upon this and other points, would, he trusted, have the effect of checking the circulation of those poisonous publications, and he trusted also that their lordships would not hesitate to pass it, seeing, as they must, that blasphemy and sedition had en- 1584 tered into a conspiracy against the religion and the constitution of the country, which could only be effectually put down by the strong arm of the law.
The Earl of Donoughmoresaid:—Ministers have, then, at last wound up, to a happy and appropriate conclusion, by this attack upon the freedom of the press, those measures of indiscriminate coercion, that system of pains and penalties which they had devised against a suffering and a prostrate people, and which have been carried into complete and unrelenting execution by overwhelming majorities in both Houses of Parliament—those ready instruments in the hands of the servants of the Prince Regent, to keep his majesty's subjects down—that best of all possible arguments, in the opinion at least of the noble knight of the Thistle on the cross bench, in favour of their own practice, whatever that practice may happen to be. Such are the true characteristics of these fearful measures.—But what is the light in which we are called upon to view them by their authors and abettors on the other side of the House? Instead of a successful attack upon the liberties of all the people, the noble earl in the blue ribbon has not hesitated to take credit for these enactments, as a mild system of remedial measures—measures of peculiar grace and mercy towards the whole community, necessarily called for, for the protection of the faithful subjects of the state, against the inroad of certain impending dangers, which, however, have come into existence—have been born and bred, and have arrived at full maturity, during the very short period which has intervened since the last prorogation of parliament. If ministers had been aware of the impending storm, is it possible that they could so far have neglected their duty as to have sent the members of both Houses home, without giving them some authentic intimation of the dangers with which the country was encompassed? And is it not making too great a demand upon our credulity, for ministers to call upon us to believe, that in four short months this mushroom rebellion has sprung up, and has already assumed so formidable an appearance? What, then, is the result of all this? My lords, I do net feel myself entitled to believe that disaffection has extended itself widely. I am not bound to give implicit credit to the representations which ministers think fit to make in their 1585 places in parliament; and that garbled statement which they have presented to both Houses with so much form and solemnity I think it my duty to reject; because it is offered as conclusive evidence against the people of these countries, for whom evidence was offered to be produced at the bar of both Houses of Parliament. But ministers refused to hear a word in their defence, and are now prepared to complete this the last act of outlawry against them, on the mere uncorroborated statement of their inveterate prosecutors, the ministers of the Prince Regent, and without a tittle of such evidence as would, or ought to be received, in any court of justice. My first and main objection then to these measures is, because a sufficient parliamentary ground has not been laid to authorize so serious a proceeding as the stripping the subject of any part of his constitutional privileges. I have another objection against the conduct of ministers, in urging the enacting of these heavy penalties as general measures, because, upon the showing of the ministers themselves, they were devised as the cure for insubordination and turbulency in a very few districts only, and those very particularly circumstanced—and because ministers have, notwithstanding, prevailed upon the parliament to pass a general sweeping system of coercion against the whole community. I have a farther ground of objection, because Ireland has been included in the wide-spreading proscription—whereas her acknowledged tranquillity and peaceable demeanor ought to have made her a very unfitting object for any new measures of severity, and inasmuch as the present measures cannot by any possibility affect her present situation, or even bear upon her former habits, when she deserved less well of the general community than she does at present; and because there has been nothing to justify suspicion against her in the remotest degree, or to prepare her for this cruel infliction, except, perhaps, her having been recently honoured by the panegyric of the ministers. The very principle on which these measures are founded, strikes my mind as in the highest degree objectionable, inasmuch as they draw a wide line of demarcation between the different orders in society, between the many and the few, the rich and the poor, the task-masters and the effective part of the population, teaching to the people this worst of all possible lessons, that in the eye of the parliament 1586 at least, their interests, and those of the higher orders, are inconsistent with each other—and again, because in these their lines of demarcation, ministers have overlooked that most appropriate of all distinctions, the separation of the innocent from the guilty.—My lords, I object to the whole of the machinery with which ministers have preceded and accompanied these extraordinary measures. They have taken the head of the state from that dignified retirement in which he is placed in the sanctuary of the constitution—from which he is produced to the view of his people in his own proper person, only for the purpose of exercising the high function of giving or refusing his sanction to the enactments of both Houses of Parliament, or the higher function still, of dispensing the heavenly prerogative of mercy. But ministers have broken into the sanctuary. They have brought the illustrious person to give a precipitate approval of the massacre of his father's subjects, and to influence thereby, as has been too fatally proved, the conduct of magistrates, and, as I fear, of juries too; thus closing the door of justice against the unfortunate victims in the tragedy which was exhibited at Manchester, on the 16th of August last. And lastly, I object to those measures, because some of their most eloquent advocates have thought it indispensable for them, in arguing their necessity, to vilify and to degrade that important part of the constituency, the people, even below the humble rank which they are acknowledged to hold in the community of the state. This may, perhaps, have been a popular topic for the moment, according to the extra-aristocratic feeling of the present day. But this argument, if it deserves the name, could surely have been intended for no other purpose but to exhibit the happy dexterity of the elegant artist in the most vivid colours, whilst he left the case just where he found it. But, according to my view of the subject, the just composition of the state assigns to that reprobated thing, the people, no inconsiderable place. The people form the great body of the social community. It is from them that it receives its form and consistency. They are the sinews of the nation's, strength in war; and in peace, the humble instruments of its commercial prosperity. It was that reprobated thing, the people, which fought us through the long and arduous contest which has crowned with glory the British and the Irish name; and 1587 has borne the triumphal car of Waterloo's distinguished chief to conquest and to immortality.
The Duke of Atholsaid, he had most conscientiously voted for these measures, being thoroughly satisfied that they were imperiously required by the state of the country. He was satisfied they would prove highly satisfactory to the great majority of the country.
§ The Earl of Harrowbyobserved, that no one could have anticipated the occurrences which took place during the recess, and that ministers, by waiting until now, only showed a disposition to trust to the existing laws, as long as they could do so with safety. Besides, the refusal of the noble lords on the other side to assent to them even now, was a proof of the difficulties that must have attended their proposal at any former period. With the exception of London, Westminster and Southwark, no petition or remonstrance had been presented against them. The silence of the people could not be disputed; and if ever there was an occasion to which the hackneyed quotation dumtacent clamant might be applied, it was the occasion of which he was speaking. From this disposition he augured favourably of the future tranquillity of the country, and thought that government, by looking the danger in the face, had pursued the only practicable measure of conciliation, that of providing for the safety of the well-disposed subjects of the Crown.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he had voted for the present measures, because he conceived that their necessary tendency was, to secure the peace of the country, and to promote the happiness of the people. This was the end and aim of all just government; but he must deny to those who were endeavouring to disturb society the character of being the people. Upon that understanding he would say, that the bills in question were calculated to add to the happiness, and to defend all the constitutional rights and interests of the subject. The meeting of parliament ought, indeed, in the present state of the country, to be regarded as a blessing, independently of these measures. How often had it been asserted and resolved in public places, that a certain meeting had been a legal meeting? Yet, was there one man in either House of Parliament who had dared to avow such an opinion? Other meetings, however, had been held in such numbers as to produce tenor, and thereby alone 1588 to be rendered illegal. At some of them banners were carried bearing the inscription of "Liberty or death," and the old song "Give us death or liberty," was sung in full chorus. So he said too; he joined in the sentiment; he hoped an Englishman always would be found to prefer death to the Joss of liberty. But what sort of liberty was intended, or what could be fairly represented by bloody flags, and black flags, by inscriptions of "Vengeance," and "Let him who has not a sword sell his garment and buy one?" He muss confess, that before parliament had assembled, his alarm was great; but the majorities which had supported these measures, and the quiet produced already, showing the confidence which was reposed in parliament, had put an end to his alarm. He would now shortly advert to these proceedings, one of which was, to prevent men from assembling together, as they had done, in numbers from 30,000 to 50,000. This the noble earl called coercion. He could not understand how such a term could apply to such a law. Was it possible that these multitudes could carry on any thing like debate, that they could calmly discuss their grievances, or make any rational progress towards their removal? The bill authorized men still to meet—to meet with those whom they knew, in a manner calculated to answer the purposes of debate, and to enable them to come to aright conclusion. Then again with regard to drilling and training, were not these practices which ought to be put down? Though the subject had certainty a right to keep arms for his own defence, he had no right to keep arms for any other purpose. By the express language of the Bill of Rights, which confirmed the general principle as to the subject's right, the right also of the legislature to interfere was asserted. With respect to the traverse bill, it had undoubtedly in its progress received improvements, which reflected great credit on a noble lord (Holland). It had been observed in another place, that the noble lord was a Whig of the first distinction, but that he (lord Eldon) was no Whig at all. In the modern acceptation of the term, he was certainly not a Whig; but he nevertheless hoped he had always followed in the path marked out to him by the example of lord Somers, and those truly great men who brought about the Revolution. Not one inch would they ever go beyond the strict necessity of the 1589 case, and by the same rule would he always govern his public conduct. Referring now to the bill for regulating the press, he was ready to admit that the liberties of Englishmen had not only been sustained and supported, but in some degree obtained by the freedom with which it exercised its powers. For the same reason, it was important to take care that it should not be destroyed by the same means. Blame had been cast on a learned person who had filled an office which he himself once had the honour to hold, for not having prosecuted libels more effectually. For his own part, he did not know how that learned person could have acted with more effect. The late publications were quite a novelty in this country. When he was in office, he never heard of waggons filled with seditious papers, in order to be distributed through every village, to be scattered over the highways, to be introduced into cottages. Such things were formerly unknown; but there was now scarcely a village in the kingdom that had not its little shop in which nothing was sold but blasphemy and sedition. He understood that some persons wished a distinction to have been drawn between blasphemy and sedition; but the fact was, that one was now resorted to for the sake of the other. The publications he was adverting to were made up of seditious blasphemy, and blasphemous sedition. By no other means could a people who for fifty years had shown themselves to be the most moral and religious in the world, be seduced into a conspiracy for overthrowing the constitution of their country. It was necessary that their religion and their morals should first be undermined. He wished that they could be separated, but he feared it was impossible.
§ The bill was then read a second time.