Sitting of 19 June 1817

COPY RIGHT BILL.
Sir Egerton Brydges, in rising, pursuant to his notice, to move for leave to bring in a bill to amend the Copy Right Act passed in the filth George 3rd, said, that he was aware that in this attempt he had a powerful and
1064
widely extended body to contend with. He should give as brief as possible a history of the origin and progress of the copy right acts. The stationers company who were incorporated by charter in 1556, bad from that date kept books, in which the publisher entered the copy of which he had embarked in the publication, for the mutual convenience of establishing among themselves evidence of title, either by purchase or pre-occupancy. In addition to this protection, booksellers and authors often sought the authority of the royal privilege; which last, for fear of infringing on the statute against monopolies was not accustomed to extend beyond 14 years. The first legislative protection was a parliamentary ordinance of 1643 by which all persons were strictly forbid, under certain penalties, to interfere with the copy rights of others, when an entry had been made of the title of the prior claimant in the stationer's book. For this protection, it is material to observe, no price or condition was required. No copies of books, so protected, were required to be delivered to any bodies; but the unquestioned property of an author in his works; or of a publisher who had been the first occupant in such copies as no author had a claim to, was recognized as the admitted law; and as such, better secured by this parliamentary measure.—In this state things remained till after the Restoration. In 1662 was passed the Licensing act, with a view to suppress seditious writings, and indeed to destroy the liberty of the press. That act contained numerous clauses, and prohibited any publication without a licence first obtained either from the ministers of state, or the vice-chancellors of the universities of Oxford and Cambridge. Another clause orders three copies of every publication to be delivered, one to the king's library, and two to Oxford and Cambridge, apparently to furnish a certain access to those books by those by whom the licences had been granted; so that any deviation from the licence might come within their immediate cognizance. This act, by way, I presume, of rendering it somewhat less unpalatable to authors, contained a clause to protect copy right, borrowed from the parliamentary ordinance of 1643. It was renewed three or four times, but was suffered to expire about 1692. From that time publishers had no legal penalties to protect them from piracies; which thence

1065
became so frequent as to endanger their best property. They accordingly petitioned for and obtained the celebrated copy right act of queen Anne in 1710. The terms of that act, as understood by the parties, and as always construed till the decision of the King's-bench in 1812, were, that they who chose to obtain the protection given to copy-right by its provisions, must enter the title of their work in the stationers books; and at the time of such, and before publication, deliver to Stationers'-hall nine copies to be distributed to the King's library, Oxford and Cambridge, Sion college, the four Scotch universities, and the Advocates university at Edinburgh. As the bill had been originally brought into the House of Commons, three copies only to the same bodies as were entitled to them under the licensing act of Charles 2nd were required to be delivered. The protecting clause had been copied nearly from that act; and this last clause was apparently derived from the same model. But see the danger of whetting the appetites of these public establishments! In the passage of the bill through the Commons, two more copies were added to the Edinburgh university and Sion college. The Scotch peers were not unwilling to improve upon this spoil. In the Lords, four more copies were added for Scotland, making the total nine copies. Since the Union with Ireland, two more have been added for that kingdom! It was soon found, that notwithstanding this price to be paid, the security afforded by the act was very imperfect. In 1735 a bill to render it more effectual was carried through the Commons, but lost in the Lords. Publishers then gradually withdrew from the custom of making entries of their books at Stationers'-hall. The universities, disappointed of their prey, grumbled and grew savage, and made several ingenious efforts to secure their spoils. At length, in 1811, Mr. Professor Christian persuaded the university of Cambridge that the true construction of the act required a delivery of the eleven copies, whether the entry was made or not, and the court of King's-bench confirmed this construction. The booksellers now appealed to the legislature to amend an act so imperfectly drawn; and which would henceforth operate as such an alarming burthen on them. In the progress of the bill brought in on this occasion in 1814, the universities exerted all their powerful and widely ramified in-
1066
terest to rivet, not to loosen, the chains: to add to their new got spoils, farther acquisitions never pretended even by them to be within the contemplation of the act —and to give nothing but that which was to come from others, and not from them. They were too successful. The amended act is an highly aggravated grievance—and sir Egerton said, he felt it his duty, notwithstanding his strong sense of the power of the bodies with whom he had to contend, to attempt to alleviate this great injustice. It had been contended, that the payment of these eleven copies was no burthen. Why* in 22 months, they amounted to 2,100 articles, and the prices of those only where prices could be ascertained, came to upwards of 8662 l. Nearly one* third of this sum came from books of prices above 20 s. consisting of only 163 articles, of which books the average impression could not reach 250 copies. Taking this at 4¾ per cent., will it be argued that this burthen is light? Will it be doubted that it is a tax equal to half the profits, taking the whole profits at 9½ per cent.—It had been said, that it was-no more than the paper; but will the pressman work for nothing? Is there no wear of type—no waste of ink, & c.? Then if the cost is admitted, it is pleaded, that these eleven copies would scarcely be sold: and why not as well remain in public libraries, as in booksellers warehouses? But it is in this accumulation of his warehouse, that a bookseller's capital is saved. At due intervals, he turns out these heaps at a trade price, at least far above the price of waste paper! Yet even the waste paper value of these eleven copies in a course of years would amount to most serious sums. But this is far from being the greatest part of the grievance. The placing eleven copies in these libraries takes out of the market a proportionate number of purchasers for the stock that remains. It would not be too much to assert, that every one of the eleven copies so deposited takes out at least nine purchasers, so that at least 100 purchasers are thus withdrawn for every expensive work. In this way sir Egerton contended, that the act of 1S14 operated as an extinguisher upon the publication of some of the most valuable. He instanced in a proposed work of Nondescript Plants of South America, by baron Humboldt, which had been thus crushed. He also complained that the late act subjected publishers to a claim for copies of reprints of old books of a date prior to the

1067
act of queen Anne, which he complained to have been so worded, as if almost to catch them by stealth; and never to have been within the contemplation or even suspicion of the original framers of the act. He then asked, upon what principle those demands of the public bodies for the payment to them of so grievous impost stood? Had authors and publishers, or had they not, a title to this property? If they had, the state were bound to protect that right, as far as any provisions could be devised to protect it. They were bound to do it without conditions—without a tax, except such as all other property was liable to. What! to put an income tax on them—and for the benefit of the partial interests of a few public libraries, when an income tax, even for the most urgent public interests, was taken off from the rest of the nation. Sir Egerton mentioned many other details, and used many other arguments. For these he apologised to the House, as not likely to be other than fatiguing. "Tedious as they may appear," said he, "they are not a twentieth part of what I could have said; on the subject. But I forbear. If the House grows impatient of these minutiæ, I am not insensible of the heaviness of my task. But the cause of literature is sacred, I know its value: I am sure that truth and justice are on my side; and I will not abandon it." He then moved, "That leave be given to bring in a bill to alter and amend an act passed in the 54th of his present majesty, so far as regards books published before the act of queen Anne, respecting the claims to eleven, copies of the said books, and also to very limited editions of books."
Mr. Bankessaid, he should take the Sense of the House on the question, as he dissented from it in every possible point of view.
Sir S. Romillysaid, it was no doubt desirous that public institutions should be furnished with books, but it ought to be done at the public expense, and not at that of the poor author. The tax thus imposed on authors was founded on a barbarous principle, and deserved the reprobation of the House.
Lord Palmerstonsaid, the real question before the House was, whether they would consent to a repeal of the law passed in 1814. He could never allow it to be said, that an act like the present, which went to promote the interests of learning, was founded on a barbarous principle.
Sir F. Burdetthad heard nothing to justify any opposition to the present motion, which, as he conceived, was founded on the strictest justice. The question at issue was simply this: whether a man shall derive the fruits of his labour, and enjoy them to the advantage of himself and family or be compelled to give them away to others? When the House considered the character, situation, and rank of those public bodies who claimed these publications, and how able they were to pay for them, he was persuaded they ought to hesitate before they rejected the motion.
Mr. J. Smithopposed the motion, because he saw no grounds whatever which could be brought forward in its support.
Mr. Ponsonbyhad, for the first time, heard that literature was promoted by authors being compelled to give their publications to the universities. For these learned bodies he felt a sincere respect, but he could not help saying they were always disposed to take a great deal, while they gave but little. If the universities required these books, they should either pay for them or the public should. He did not see why these public bodies should not purchase their books as well as individuals. It was truly absurd to say that literature was promoted by their receiving these copies from poor authors.
Mr. Crokerthought the right hon. gentleman had not read the act of queen Anne, which expressly states that the provisions of that act were for the encouragement of literature. Besides, he had not recollected the advantages which authors obtained by this act in the extension of their copyrights. It was not fair, as he presumed, to call this a tax on authors.
Mr. Broughamconsidered, that his right hon. friend had as much knowledge of the act of queen Anne, as the hon. gentleman, but certainly the provisions of the last bill rendered it necessary to be amended, as it imposed a greater burthen on authors, than they ought to bear. It certainly was not any encouragement to learning, to impose on poor men the task of supplying the universities with books, and thereby unnecessarily sparing the funds of those rich and well endowed bodies.
Mr. Finlayopposed the motion, observing, that the contribution of eleven copies was not so heavy a tax as by some it was supposed to be, as, in most cases, it was little more than the expense of paper and printing.
Mr. Wynnconceived that it was absolutely necessary to revise the act, in consequence of the manner in which its provisions had been executed. It was rather an extraordinary circumstance, that, with the exception of two of the universities, who refused novels and music, the learned bodies, to whom the law gave these copies, took them of every description of work that was published. It was not just, that by this means a power should be given to send expensive publications into the market in competition with the publisher. It would be much better to adjudge to the universities a pecuniary compensation which might be used for the advancement of learning.
The House then divided: For the motion, 57; Against it, 58: Majority 1.

SPIES AND INFORMERS.
On our re-admission to the galley,
Sir F. Burdettwas reprobating the employment of spies as allies of government in the maintenance of social order. While such instruments were made use of, it was impossible that any man's property or persons could be safe; and the misdeeds of one of these miscreants, whose conduct bad lately been brought to light, proved, but too plainly, the truth of what he asserted. Under these circumstances, and hearing that the noble lord had attempted to defend the conduct of such a man as Thomas Reynolds, of Welbeck-street, he should be glad to know of ministers whether those spies had their authority for making use of the names of individuals? A transaction of this sort had occurred, in regard to which the state of the times rendered it necessary for him to vindicate his own character, however contemptible and unworthy of notice the individuals might otherwise be. It did appear then, that Oliver, the fellow of Reynolds, had gone about the country introducing himself "with sir F. Burdett's compliments." After what had already come out, it was impossible to say how far this man might be authorized by, or associated with, government. If so, the infamy of such transactions was mutual on the employer and the employed; or rather the government that could employ such agents, the scourge, and pest of society, was even more culpable than the wretched agents themselves; and if "Universal justice ruled the ball," the noble lord would be tried with his creatures, Castle and Oliver, for their conspiracies against the subjects
1070
of this kingdom. If the employers of these men had any feeling, or any conscience, they would have shunned the assistance of such unworthy allies; for they might beforehand have been sure that such agents would go beyond their instructions, because it was their obvious interest to do so: if they did not promote treason, their employment was at an end. A jury of able, independent, and honest men, had shown their sense of the infamous purposes for which these spies had been employed.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, that if any improper use had been made of the hon. baronet's name, it was owing, not as the hon. baronet would insinuate, to any directions on the part of his majesty's government, but, in all probability to causes over which the hon. baronet himself had greater control. At a proper period, he should be perfectly prepared to justify the part taken by government on this subject. If the hon. baronet's name had been mixed up with any of the proceedings of the individuals to whom he had alluded, it was himself that he had to thank for it, and not his majesty's government.

TITHE EXEMPTIONS BILL.
Mr. Curwensaid:—The question I have to submit to the House is of the utmost importance, not only as it relates to property, but in the influence it is likely to have in preventing vexatious and expensive litigations, highly injurious to public morals, as well as to the temporal interests of the clergy. I am anxious, in the outset, explicitly to disclaim all intention of proposing any thing which can lessen the security of the property of the church or lay proprietor of tithes. Tithes, like all other descriptions of property, ought to be held sacred. If I succeed in showing that the law of evidence for substantiating a title to tithes is at variance with itself, and in direct opposition to every principle as applicable to all other kinds of property,—that the powers with which the church is armed are unnecessary for the protection of its own property, and inconsistent with the rights of others; I shall, I trust have made out a case calling for legislative interference. Fortunately, this may be accomplished without the application of any new principle; all that is requisite to be done is, to make the law applicable to property analogous to all descriptions of tithes. No statute of limitation exists against the claims of the

1071
church; consequently no length of possession, nor even an uninterrupted enjoyment of centuries, bars her claims to tithes. Prima facie the church is entitled to them; and nothing less than complete proof of the origin of the exemption claimed by the land-owner can be of any avail against the demand. Prior to the 9th George 3rd, the Crown enjoyed a similar privilege. A possession of sixty years is now a bar against the ancient rights of the Crown; but no length of time whatever will preclude the right of tithes; and as the church is prima facie entitled to them, lapse of time, which in all other cases strengthens the title to property, has the effect of weakening it in the case of the church, in as much as the original evidence of the exemption becomes thereby more difficult to be obtained. Nothing can be more repugnant to justice than this. Uninterrupted enjoyment for a certain length of time ought, and in all cases but that of the church does, confer an unimpeachable title. Not to admit prescription and enjoyment as a ground of title, is to shake all title, and to leave property exposed to endless litigation. In the present instance of the church, as may be seen by the papers I moved for in the early part of the session, exhibiting above 120 causes determined in the courts of exchequer and chancery in the last seven years, and about an equal number now pending, the fact has but too well corresponded with the theory. Disputes daily arise; and the most tedious, and expensive suits, are the ordinary consequence of this palpable defect in our law. The land-owner is naturally unwilling to surrender a right which long enjoyment has taught him to think justly his, at the same time that he is perhaps unable to prove, from loss of deeds or other evidence of facts to make out his title to the exemptions according to the severe rules of evidence adhered to in the courts of equity. In the end, he is not only despoiled of his property, but is also loaded with the costs of a long and expensive litigation. The evil of the law as it now stands is glaring. In support of this opinion, I have the first law authorities, in a case decided in Chancery by lord Elks-mere, with the principal judges. For "tempus est edax rerum," "records and letters patent, and others writings, either consume or are lost, or are embezzled: God forbid that ancient grants and acts should be drawn in question, although
1072
that cannot be shown which at first was necessary to the perfection of the thing." In the case of church lands, it seems but reasonable the church should be bound by the same statutes and rules of limitation by which other property, not excepting the Crown itself, is bound, But the case of tithes is somewhat different. Tracts of land which have been hitherto barren, may, by modern improvement in agriculture, be brought into culture; and it would be unjust, in such cases, that the church should be deprived of her tithes. A modified limitation of half a century, from the present time, might be reasonable. The respectability of the church is an. object in which the nation at large is deeply concerned. Fully to appreciate the consequences of the extensive litigation of late years, it will be for the House to consider, that the duration of the hundred and twenty suits has not been less than six or seven years, pending which the churches have, in many instances, been nearly deserted. To such lengths have hostilities, in too many cases, been carried between the pastor and their flocks! Thus is that respect and veneration so necessary for the due discharge of the sacred functions broke through and destroyed. This is ground sufficient of itself to call for the intervention of this House. Great as the evil has been, it will, in the course of things, become yearly greater, as the security of property decreases. Whatever may be the degree of blame imputable to individuals, the great body of the clergy are distinguished by a very praise-worthy moderation. How long this body may be proof against the strong temptation the law holds out for litigation it is not for me to conjecture. Lord Hobart, in the case of Slade v. Drake, says, "It is a strange anomalum tithes differing from all other cases in law: for, whereas prescriptions and antiquity of time fortifies all other titles, and supposeth the best beginning that law can give them, in this case it works clean the contrary; and this is in favorem ecclesiœ, lest laymen should spoil the church." The practice of the courts of law, in latter times, has ' been, to fortify the claims of prescription: thus in the solemn argument of Reid v. Brookman, about 26 years ago, lord Kenyon ruled, that instead of the profert it might be alleged that the deed was lost and destroyed by time and accident, and that usage would prove it, observing, "this is founded on necessity, since no

1073
human prudence can render deeds existing for ever." In the case of Berney v. Hervey, 1809, the present lord chancellor says, "I do not think I ought now to disturb the doctrine which has prevailed so long whatever I might originally have thought of it."—The doubtfulness of the legality of its origin, added to its palpable injustice, is a strong reason for legislative redress. The practice is at variance with the feelings and common sense of mankind, and can only have existed so long because it has not been complained of, nor redress sought where alone it could be obtained. How the present practice arose, of which I complain, is not very material to inquire. The ancient mode by which the clergy proceeded for the recovery of tithes was by libel in the ecclesiastical courts, which were removeable, by a writ of prohibition, into the court of King's-bench, where the claim was decided by a verdict of a jury. Disputes arising between the ecclesiastical and civil courts, as to the right of interference of the latter, were at length decided by a solemn hearing before king James who ruled "He would abide by the common law of the realm." For nearly 50 years the practice thus settled was followed, when the clergy, to get rid of the trial by jury, resorted to the expedient of commencing their suits in the courts of equity.—My first object is to apply a remedy to this deviation of the laws of the land by courts of equity usurping a right to pronounce on matters of fact without the intervention of a jury, as is done by deciding on moduses, being what is termed rank, or from their amount arguing a more modern date than that of Richard 1st. The courts of equity pronouncing on the rankness of moduses is a usurpation on the indisputable rights of juries. It stands unsanctioned by any precedent; contrary, indeed, to the established laws of the realm. Nor is the practice of equity courts regulated by an equal measure of justice between the tithe owner and tithe payer. In all cases where the church prays an issue to try the case before a jury, it is granted,—not so to the landholder. This seems to me a very partial and arbitrary mode of proceeding. My object is, to re-establish the right of the subject to a trial by jury on all matters of fact. This practice of the courts to decide on rank moduses without the intervention of a jury has been attempted to be defended by impeaching the impartiality of juries in tithe causes. But at no period
1074
of our history did the value and estimation of juries stand higher. Such senseless invectives have a complete answer by referring to the decisions of juries on tithe causes, in the last seven years, which are so decidedly in favour of the clergy.—The next point to which I would draw the attention of the House is to what are termed compositions—a composition real, or composition made between parson, patron, ordinary, and the parishioners, by deed—by which perpetual composition in lieu of tithes was established. These agreements, prior to the 13th Eliz. were valid. Doubtless numbers of such were made before they were prohibited. The proof of these rests solely on the deed of agreement after the lapse of 246 years. I entreat the House to consider in how few instances can such a title be established. After four times the period that would bar the Crown, no security results to the possessor of tithes. On what grounds of justice should not perpetual and uninterrupted enjoyment beyond all memory be admitted to prove the existence of such a deed? Every day, every year, must augment the jeopardy in which such property is placed, if this practice be suffered to continue. Subsequent to the 13th Eliz. compositions were made by parson, patron, ordinary, and parishioners, by deeds sanctioned by decrees of chancery. The legality of such proceedings was not questioned till 1765, when, in the case Blair v. lord Cholmley and others, they were declared illegal. It will be sufficient to show what has resulted from this decision to induce the legislature to correct the flagrant injustice that has sprung from it. I refer gentlemen to the case of the rev. Paploe Ward, rector of Cottenham. The composition in this case was made by deed, bearing date 1595, and sanctioned by a decree in chancery. The lands given in lieu of tithes are known by the name of the undertakers' or adventurers' lands—most probably on account of a drainage. After an enjoyment of upwards of 200 years this was set aside, and the rev. doctor recovered his tithes. And because the legal representatives of the lands cannot now be all discovered, the rector holds the land and the tithes both. To meet and remedy such cases, I would propose, that where compositions by deed or decree of chancery shall be set aside, the lands so given should be held by the churchwardens for the use of the poor, till the property shall be legally claimed. This is referring them to the use of those

1075
for whose benefit the church in early times was bound to provide, and whence, probably, originated the payment of tithes. At the reformation a great many of the lands belonging to monasteries and religious houses passed into the hands of the Crown, and were disposed of to various purchasers. In very many cases, parties, claiming under these grants, are not able to make put, after so long a lapse of time, that their lands were parcel of such abbey lands; but have proof that such lands have always been enjoyed, exempt from the payment of tithes. Whilst the rector or vicar has constantly received tithes of all other parts of the parish, and never of these lands, yet this is not sufficient, and tithes are nevertheless recoverable. This is a case strongly calling for remedy,— There is a further class of tithe-owners, the lay-impropriator. These lay-impropriators have all the rights of spiritual persons whom they represent—and the same mode of decision is applied to them; though by the 32d Henry 8th they are become temporal inheritances with every right incidental to such property. The deeds, sanctioning such sales from the first grantees, are, in a great majority of cases, I believe, lost or destroyed; yet, monstrous as it may appear, the courts of exchequer and chancery refuse to admit uninterrupted enjoyment as a proof of the existence of such conveyances. In the case of the corporation of Bury v. Evans, 1735, it was decided the court would not presume the existence of a deed, in the case of a lay-impropriator, though the non-payment of tithes beyond all memory was made out. It is fairly to be presumed, rectors, vicars, and lay-impropriators, have been encouraged to institute suits in chancery and the exchequer, for the purpose of setting aside moduses, real compositions, and exemptions, merely on the chance of succeeding by the default of the defendants' title from loss of deeds, and have, in too many instances, been successful. To stop such disgraceful proceedings, the legislature must adopt measures such as I have now to recommend to them. Short of this the landholder will be despoiled of his legal rights, by the church. Without some legislative measure such as I propose, nothing can prevent the church from plundering the community and destroying those exemptions to which they are justly entitled.—It is not my intention to ask more of the House than to suffer the bill to be brought in, and read a first time, in
1076
order that it may be printed and circulated throughout the kingdom. I have now to move for leave to bring in a bill to amend the laws relative to moduses, prescriptions, and exemptions from tithes.
Sir W. Scottwould not resist the motion for the introduction of the bill, but although he coincided in much of what had fallen from the hon. gentleman, he should be sorry that it should go forth to the public, that he could ultimately agree to the great innovation which the bill proposed to make.
Sir S. Romillysupported the bill, although he feared it was too late in the session to give an opportunity sufficiently to discuss so important a subject. He confirmed all the statements of the hon. mover with respect to the inconveniences of the present law, and particularly the circumstance that long possession, which strengthened all other property, weakened church property; since, instead of a prescriptive title being obtained in 60 years, it was necessary to go back 600 years, in order to establish a claim.
Mr. Lockhartcontended, that such a bill would be most valuable, in order to settle the titles to church property, and put them on the best foundation.
Leave was granted to bring in the bill.

STATE OF IRELAND.
Sir J. New port, in rising to call the attention of the House to the necessity of an inquiry into the state of Ireland, lamented the evident indifference that appeared to prevail among the members towards that subject, by the very thin attendance then present. His sole wish was to compel ministers to give some pledge, that during the ensuing prorogation, they would cause a revision of the state of that interesting portion of the empire. Since the Union sixteen years had elapsed, and Ireland had a right to have its affairs fully and impartially examined. He had early in the session drawn the attention of the House to the state of the finances of that country, but this consideration was waived by a motion for the previous question, on the pretence that it came more immediately within the purview of the finance committee. The report of that committee had been brought in, and fully confirmed the distressing statement he had made of the revenues of Ireland. This should be inquired into, and the House might be assured, that if it were not fairly taken up, Ireland would force herself on their attention.

1077
Since the Union this country had been engaged in a tremendous conflict, which had in some degree warranted the unwillingness of the House to enter into the inquiry; but if on the recurrence of peace, the House were not prepared to enter upon the question, he could not conceive when they would be disposed to consider it. To obtain this object, he should move, "That an humble address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, praying that his Royal Highness will be pleased to direct such deliberate and accurate inquiry to be made, during the prorogation of parliament, into the state and condition of the people of Ireland, as may enable this House, at the commencement of the ensuing session, to enter with vigour and effect into a complete investigation of the causes, nature, and extent, of the evils which afflict that part of the United Kingdom; and to devise such salutary and efficacious remedies, framed in the spirit of British constitutional legislation, as may appear to our dispassionate judgment most adequate to effect their complete and permanent removal; and in the impressive terms of the act for the Union of the two Kingdoms, 'to promote and secure the essential interests of Great Britain and Ireland, and to consolidate the strength, power, and resources of the British empire.'"
Sir G. Hillcontended, that if the House should consent to go into the inquiry, it would kindle the animosities subsisting between the two parties in Ireland. He moved as an amendment that the other orders of the day be now read.
Sir N. Colthurst, in dissenting from the motion, did not mean to deny that many grievances existed in Ireland, which ought to be redressed; but it implied a want of confidence in the government, which he, for one, did not feel.
The House divided on the Amendment: Ayes, 59; Noes, 10.

List of the Minority.

Atherley, Arthur

Tierney, rt. hon. G.

Barham, J.

Waldegrave, H. W.

Browne, D.

Wood, Matthew

Duncannon, visc.

TELLERS.

Newman, R. W.

Gordon, Robert

Parnell, sir Henry

Newport, sir John

Ponsonby, rt. hon. G.

HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENSION BILL.
On the motion for the third reading of this bill,
The Duke of Bedfordsaid, he could not reconcile it to his sense of public duty, now that the bill had arrived at its last stage, not to deliver his solemn protest against it. He trusted their lordships

1045
would fairly and dispassionately consider the case. The committee of secrecy, acting in the nature of a grand jury, had, from whatever evidence was laid before them, drawn a bill of indictment against the whole people of England, and it was for their lordships (though unfortunately without evidence) to try the case, and pronounce a verdict of condemnation or acquittal. He was afraid he could not anticipate a verdict of acquittal, but he must say there was no evidence to support a verdict of condemnation. Where was the danger? We were now in a period of profound peace, without any foreign enemy to contend with, without any circumstances existing arising in the slightest degree from external danger; what was there then to fear? Was it from a few discontented individuals driven to despair by privation and distress; was it for this, that the liberties of the whole people of England were to be suspended? It was true he was not without fears, but he feared the power of the Crown, and not the liberty of the people; and the more particularly, because of late years measures for increasing the power of the Crown had been agreed to without hesitation, whilst those which tended to increase the privileges of the people had uniformly met with rejection. In looking to that passage of the report of the committee of secrecy, respecting spies and informers, he could not but express his astonishment that the committee should have given so much credit to statements thus supported. When he had the honour of filling the office of chief governor of Ireland, the office of the chief) secretary was beset by spies and informers, who would have persuaded him that Ireland was almost in a state of rebellion; and had he listened to these tales he might have adopted measures which would have deluged half Ireland with blood. But by pursuing a conduct firm, moderate, and temperate, he put down the tendency to outrage, which had displayed itself, and delivered over Ireland to his successor in the government in a perfect state of tranquillity. By listening to spies and informers, the government here would be led on to measures totally destructive of the liberties of the people. It was utterly impossible that the constitution could stand, if the government were to be carried on upon such a system, and it was with the deepest regret and the greatest alarm, that he had heard the employment
1046
of spies avowed and justified by his majesty's ministers. If this were to be the system, the noble secretary of state had better go over to Paris and take lessons from M. de Cazes, or some other celebrated superintendent of police. Such a system of espionage (he used the French word, because, and he rejoiced at it, there was no adequate word in the English language to express the same meaning), was utterly inconsistent with the free constitution of Britain. No argument had been urged in favour of this measure (excepting the ground of humanity stated by a noble duke) save that of necessity, which had been in all ages the tyrant's plea. Necessity had invariably been urged by Buonaparté as an excuse for every measure of tyranny he had imposed upon the people. The same argument had been used for the same purpose by the government that preceded him, the Directory, and in the same way by the power immediately preceding that by the tyrant Robespierre, when it was urged at the bar of the convention, that the law ought to be suspended in order to save the country. With regard to one part of the report of the committee, that respecting blasphemous publications, there was no greater enemy than himself to such kind of publications, but he must remind the noble secretary of state, that at all periods of political agitation, there had been parodies circulated of parts of the church service which, though they could not be defended, yet proved that this offence was not now committed for the first time, and, therefore, that they ought not to be designated in the terms in which they were. One circumstance connected with one of these productions he felt it his duty to state, it was a parody upon the creed, which had been sent from Norwich to the secretary of state's office. It was written 24 years ago by a person then a jacobin and a leveller, but who had since become a supporter of the government, and who had this parody, written formerly by himself, reprinted at an obscure ministerial book seller's at Norwich, and then sent it to the secretary of state's office, as a proof of the seditious and blasphemous spirit that prevailed at Norwich. This statement he had from an authority which he believed could not be questioned. Upon the whole view of the question, though yielding to no man in loyalty to his sovereign, or respect for the constitution, he did not think that any ground was laid for

1047
the present measure, and therefore he felt it his duty to vote against the bill.
The Earl of Westmorelandsaid, it was admitted on all hands that there might be circumstances under which it would be proper to resort to this measure; and some of the noble lords opposite who had spoken against the bill, must allow that there had been times when the measure was necessary. Then, the short question was, is this a proper time for the suspension? It had been objected to this proceeding, that the act would be in existence at a time when parliament would be prorogued, or perhaps dissolved: but it appeared to him only the more necessary, that the power should exist at that period, because, in case a particular emergency should arise, government could not immediately apply to parliament for assistance. Then it had been objected that a period of peace was a very improper time for such a measure: but whether the time was a time of war or of peace was not the question. The question was, whether the exigency existed? But he thought that the reason for such a measure might be stronger in time of peace than in time of war, because in time of peace the country was in a great measure disarmed. But the question was, whether the exigency existed? Now, there could be no question that conspiracies and plots against the government had been and were still carried on to an extent sufficient to excite alarm for the public safety in the minds of all, except in the firm and tranquil minds of the noble lords opposite: this was the conclusion come to by two committees of their lordships. It might be asked, why the duration of the suspension had not been at first continued for a longer period? The answer was, that ministers were anxious that these powers should not continue longer than parliament and the country might think them necessary. Then it had been said, that the suspension might be allowed to expire, and that if a particular emergency arose, government migh call the parliament together, and procure a renewal of those powers. But if that were done, then it would be objected, that ministers had not thought proper to apply for the renewal in a full parliament, but had suffered the suspension to expire that they might get it renewed by a few of their own friends. The noble duke had asserted that the employment of spies was unconstitutional. That was rather an extraordinary assertion,
1048
when it was considered that the secretary of state was called upon to swear that part of the secret service money would be employed by him in detecting conspiracies at home. But the fact was, that such agents had always been employed by government, and that it was impossible to detect conspiracies of this nature without them.
The Earl of Donoughmoreobserved, that the noble earl who had just sat down had said he could answer for the majority of parliament, which, perhaps, he might do; but, as to the people, he was not only convinced the majority of them were not with the ministers in the measures they were now pursuing; but he was satisfied the statement to this effect would excite amongst the people a feeling of indignation, he had almost said though he rather believed it would excite a feeling of a very different kind. It seemed, however, from what had been said by the noble earl, that spies and informers were associated with ministers that they were to be treated with respect; that such men as Castles or Oliver (of whom they had heard something on a former night), or a man who had procured several Irishmen for a rebellion in which he had participated, being himself first a rebel, and then an informer, were all to be treated with respect, and considered as gentlemen. No one could hear what had been said by a noble duke without attaching great importance to what had been said. The noble earl who followed him, had endeavoured to pick holes in that speech, but he had shaken no material part of it. The noble duke had given evidence to them, and most material evidence. He had stated what he himself had done in the government of a country which certainly was not one of the least difficult to govern well, as the noble earl well knew. But certainly the noble earl did not find Ireland in a state so disturbed as it was found by the noble duke, nor did he leave it so quiet as the noble duke left it. The noble duke had stated what he had found the best mode of governing the Irish, and which would also be found the best mode of governing British subjects—conciliation. The circumstances under which they were called on to re-enact the law which had given such power to the ministers, were such, that no man who was at all in the habit of addressing the House should give a silent vote. If he had been in the House when

1049
the former measure was proposed, he should have said that the ministers had not made out a case. Majorities of the two Houses had, however, been of a different opinion; the liberties of the people of England had been delivered up to the ministers, and were still in their possession. They had the advantage also of a sitting parliament, and there had been no resistance from any quarter. If any plot had been in existence, there had been time for it to be matured and brought to light. Several arrests had taken place, and they had of course selected for trial the strongest and best case they had. They placed their character as wise ministers, on this issue. This one great case which they selected to vindicate their character and conduct, was brought before a public tribunal, in the manner most satisfactory to British feelings, by a regular trial before the great court of criminal justice. There was a patient trial, and he took it for granted an impartial jury. They knew how that had ended; in contempt, and in so complete a failure, that though three persons remained to be tried, round whose necks the ministers thought they had securely fastened the halter, the prosecution against them was abandoned by the Crown lawyers. The ministers had declared by their committee that there was an absolute necessity for the measure. If they had made this as a distinct proposition, and taken on themselves the responsibility, some weight would be attached to their declaration. But they had chosen to make the House a party in the responsibility by stating the grounds and the facts upon which they proceeded. And upon the showing of the ministers themselves—upon their own statement communicated through the report—he had no difficulty in coming to a conclusion directly contrary to theirs. Here the noble earl read nearly the whole of the report, and argued that there was nothing in it which could warrant their lordships in passing the bill now before them.
The Earl of Limerickrose to reply to some allusions which had been made by the noble earl who spoke last to the character of Mr. Reynolds. He would say, without fear of contradiction, that in a time of great danger and alarm, the individual in question had rendered important services to his country. This individual had originally a considerable fortune, and was connected with respectable society; but having wasted his property, and left
1050
his former friends, he had fallen into the company of conspirators and traitors. Being a man of family and carrying along with him some of the influence of his former situation in life, be was received with open arms and admitted to high confidence; but he soon found that his new society were intent on dangerous projects, and had formed designs to involve his country in anarchy, massacre, and blood; that they intended to overturn the laws and government, and to effect a separation of the two kingdoms. He, therefore, reflected on the atrocity of these plans, and determined to retrace his steps. The first time he showed his intention to repent was after a dinner where he had been with some of his associates; in going from which he stated to a friend the desperate achievements that were in contemplation. He told them that he knew the persons engaged in them, and would discover their transactions, provided certain individuals were saved from punishment; and this man laid open the whole plan to government without fee or reward, or the prospect of fee or reward, upon the simple stipulation of safety for some of his friends. The bloody conspiracy which he disclosed was thus prevented, by his means, and yet this man was now declared a spy and an informer, and held up to infamy. This, however, was not the only conspiracy that he detected, or the only service he rendered to his country. The noble person who was then secretary for Ireland thought so highly of his services, that he appointed him inspector of packets at Lisbon, where he was serviceable to government. What was now his crime? Was it that, being once wrong, he had amended and made every reparation in his power; or was it that he was returned a juryman in the jury summoned for the late trial, which it was feared might have terminated differently with a different jury? The noble lord concluded by saying, that he would support the motion before the House.
The Earl of Essexsaid, he knew nothing of the case of Mr. Reynolds, but he apprehended there was a vast difference between men who acted as spies (revolting to the feelings as that occupation was) and such men as Oliver, who incited their victims to commit the crimes for which they informed against them. That horrid monster, for instance, had endeavoured to engage the wife of a man to induce him by her persuasion to go to a meeting, his presence at which would have involved

1051
him in destruction. The employment of these men had the effect of encouraging crimes, not of preventing them. It now became the duty of the House to watch over the rights of the people, which were day after day diminished. This new encroachment on them was in his opinion unnecessary, and he thought it the more unnecessary from the nature of the men engaged in the alleged treasons; men of no sort of property, or commanding talents or influence of any kind.
The Marquis Camdenstated, that Mr. Reynolds had given important information to the Irish government of a plot in agitation. He had communicated it to a friend, so as to give intelligence enough to frustrate the plot without personally appearing, and it was not till he was arrested that he was induced to give direct evidence. He had then given testimony in a manner which was not to be contradicted, and on that evidence two or three traitors had been convicted, who afterwards acknowledged their crimes. He gave his hearty assent to the measure under discussion.
Lord Sidmouthsaid, that of the two persons mentioned, Castles and Oliver, as spies and informers, Castles was not a spy. He had never given information to government till five weeks after the 2d of December. Oliver was employed by government to avert imminent danger. The noble earl had founded his remarks on the statement in a news paper. That statement, he believed, was incorrect, in many material points.
Lord St. Johnsaid, he must enter his solemn protest against a measure which he considered to be as unnecessary, as it was destructive of the first principles of the constitution. What was the nature of; the alleged conspiracies? They had seen a proof in the trials which had recently occurred; and he really wondered that the law officers of the down were not ashamed to offer such a case, accompanied with so much solemnity, to the attention and good sense of a jury. When he remembered the issue of that prosecution, he should have thought the noble viscount, feeling impressed with a consciousness of his rashness, would have come down clothed in sackcloth and ashes, and humbled himself before the legislature, instead of persisting in his original error. With regard to the present act, as compared with the former one, he would wish to impress one fact upon their lordships attention. It
1052
was unlimited in its extent and duration, not being intended to expire till six weeks after the next meeting of parliament. Now, in whose hands was the control exercised over the assembling of parliament? In the hands of the ministers themselves; and who, therefore, could keep the law in operation as long as they thought it expedient. The noble lord here entered into an examination of all the different occasions, when the Habeas Corpus act was suspended since the Revolution, and contended that there was no parity between them and the present. It was impossible to look at the current of events during the last two or three years, without fixing upon the administration of the country, and especially upon the noble viscount, the responsibility of many of the distresses and discontents which prevail. No one thing had been done to conciliate the public mind; no disposition had been manifested to listen to the complaints of the people. Petitions, when presented, had been carelesly thrown aside; and no steps taken towards conceding the objects of their prayer. It was impossible that such a course of proceedings should not increase the general irritation. He would rather advise the adoption of a different course of policy, instead of going on with that system of coercion. On those grounds, he should give his vote against the third reading of the bill.
Lord Somerscould not allow, because there was a character of absurdity belonging to the late conspiracies, that therefore their consequences were not to be feared. Had not the result of those plots been an insurrection, only short of rebellion, in consequence of the vigilance of government? There were sufficient grounds, in his judgment, to call for such a measure as the present. There was the report of the first committee, which contained ample reasons for the bill then brought in. They had now the report of another committee, and which report he thought, was highly honourable to that committee. Called upon, as they were, to investigate matters of such consequence and finding adequate evidence to induce, them to recommend the re-adoption of the former measure, they at the same time, candidly admitted that the government had been obliged, as all governments were, to employ persons for the purpose of discovering the machinations of the conspirators. And after all, what was the proposed suspension? Only for a short time.

1053
But the noble lord who spoke last, said that the calling of parliament together depended merely upon the will of ministers, and that therefore the duration of the law would be as long as they thought proper. Good God! could such an argument be seriously urged? It might depend upon the will of ministers whether parliament should be called a week or two sooner or later, but beyond that, what power had they? Could ministers do without the parliament for any length of time. He really never heard so weak an argument. How far could a suspension of the Habeas Corpus act be called a suspension of the constitution? He had heard it said, that if the law passed, there would be an end of the constitution, and the liberties of every man in the kingdom would be at the mercy of ministers. Was that the fact? He firmly believed that the suspension was not, in the slightest degree, liable to produce the deprivation of liberty to any subject in this country, which ought to be preserved, or could be preserved, without prejudice to the general liberty of all. The noble lord who preceded him, had talked about conciliating the people. Conciliation, as far as it was just and proper, he should be ready to adopt. But he would not humour the people by granting whatever they might be instigated to ask. Let every thing be done, that could be done, and let the people see, that so much was done; but go no farther. Their lordships ought not to forget the lessons of experience on this subject. From one step they would be led on to another, till they accomplished the final destruction of the established constitution. We had at present a good one, and for the preservation of it he thought it was not going too far, under the existing circumstances, to vote for a few months the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act
The Marquis Wellesleysaid, he had not the vanity to think that he could by any flattery perplex the understanding, or change the opinion of the noble lord who had last spoken; although, from an early acquaintance with him, he entertained a sincere respect for his talents, and his integrity. But he would not describe the people of England as the noble lord had described them; nor would he believe that it was in the power of any man, however excellent his character or great his talents, to flatter them either into an abandonment of their rights, or a belief that that was a right which was not so sub-
1054
stantially. The noble lord had evidently referred to something which had been somewhere said on the subject of parliamentary reform; but he would at least do him the justice to acknowledge, that he had been always adverse to any change in the constitution of the other House of parliament. On the first day of the present session he had described the new principles of reform, and the doctrine of universal suffrage, as a gross delusion, which it had been endeavoured unsuccessfully to practise upon a people for whose understandings he had too high a respect to suppose them capable of yielding to it. Whenever such principles should gain an ascendancy, revolution would not be merely commenced, it would be completed, and an end be put to all the subsisting forms of our mixed government. He repelled, therefore, as well for the noble lords behind him as for himself, the insinuation that they had humoured the people at public meetings with such notions, or had deluded them with these idle theories.—It was in the present stage of this awful question that he desired to state his sentiments respecting it. The House now came to the discussion of it, with some distinct information as to the precise nature and character of the dangers; and it had also, to a certain extent, a clear view of the operation of the suspension bill upon that danger. In discussing this great subject, he should first consider the real nature or character of the danger, or mischief as it was sometimes called, and whether it might or might not be prevented or corrected by the existing laws, including among those laws the recent act regarding seditious assemblies; secondly, he should inquire whether that danger, and that peculiar system of mischief, could be met by any thing so well as the existing laws; thirdly, whether this extraordinary measure had not practically aggravated the danger and mischief it was intended to correct; and lastly, whether this suspension of the Habeas Corpus must not inevitably produce the dangerous and mischievous effects it was intended to correct. In treating of the first point, he felt called upon to set right some misrepresentations of the arguments of his noble friends. It had been stated, that they had argued against the suspension bill, because the situation of the country was not now exactly the same as in 1745, or at any other period when this expedient had been adopted. In fact, the turn of their argument had been directly the reverse: they

1055
insisted only that a case should be shown requiring the infringement of the constitution; to which only a sort of general answer had been made, "will you say that whenever the Habeas Corpus act is suspended the constitution is destroyed?" No noble lord who had resisted the bill had so said; but they had followed up their demand for reasons in favour of the measure, by showing that none of those existing at previous times applied to the present circumstances of the country. They had maintained that the known precedents had no bearing upon the question —no reference to the existing state of things; and they insisted, therefore, that some other ground should be laid for conferring these extraordinary powers. Entering a little farther into the point of the real nature and character of the danger, it was admitted on all hands, that the principles applying to cases of internal rebellion, fostered by external enemies, had no reference to this case: it was not even shown that any domestic conspiracy had been levelled at the regal power of the king, or at what the law construed into an attack upon it, or into a purpose of dethroning him. What adverse foreign power now fomented discontent? Or where could ministers point out general or even particular combinations to overthrow the government and destroy the authority of the sovereign? Stripped of all those circumstances, the case was different from any other known in our history. The noble lord opposite had even gone a great deal farther; for he had admitted that, from the conspiracy recently so much the subject of conversation, he had not apprehended any immediate danger to the constitution: but he, and those who supported him, added, that such practices ought not to be allowed to pass without check or punishment; for if they were allowed, they might lead to others of a more serious and fearful description. If, therefore, it were urged to-night that the constitution had been endangered by that conspiracy, it would be said for the first time, and it would be in direct opposition to what had hitherto appeared and been allowed on all sides of the question. He did not mean to deny, on the contrary it was a part of his argument, that these practices were all contrary to law; they were all certainly dangerous, and required the visitation of punishment; but what he contended was, that without this bill they were all within the grasp of the law; and
1056
farther, that as far as the designs had appeared in act, as far as any attempt had been made by the ill-disposed, they had been checked and repelled by the ordinary law: where the offence had been moderately interpreted and regularly prosecuted, the parties had indeed suffered the sentence of the law. Far was it from his intention to state, that because the persons engaged in these offences were of mean birth, and generally of low education; because their means were completely inefficient for the end, they were not criminal, and ought not to be watched by government with a vigilant eye; and even be made to feel the consequences of their crime. But here were no circumstances to excite alarm; no foreign enemy to encourage; no secret intriguers to foment: no persons of rank, education, or talents, to lead and to support. Then arose the question, did these conspiracies derive support from any circumstance? Were they aided and abetted by any great mass of the population, or was the plot so constructed and combined as to make what would otherwise be ridiculous and contemptible, serious and formidable? Assuredly not. Had any thing more absurd been heard of in the history of absurdities than the scheme recently disclosed? He protested that, had he not seen the testimony upon oath, he could never have imagined that such a project could have entered into the head of the most frantic Bacchanalian. Let us see how it was compounded and conducted. The plan was to seize on the metropolis at all its great points; to storm the Tower, to take the Bank, to burn the barracks, to conquer the military, to overthrow the old and to establish a new government: and how was all this to be accomplished 2 The exchequer of these rebels, or to speak more accurately, their military chest, contained 31 l.; their arsenal was filled with six pistols and one old gun; their magazine consisted of about half a dozen bullets in a blue stocking, with a stock of powder in proportion, and that not put into the waggon by a conspirator, but by an informer; and, as the design was to employ combustibles, care was taken that they should only have a deadly operation by stench. The soldiers in the barracks were not to be burnt or blown up, but to be stifled. They were to make themselves masters of the Bank in a singular manner; by the abuse of an instrument that ought to be applied to better pur-

1057
poses—wine bottles, which they were to plunder from the hospitable citizens; and having employed these bottles in the attack, they were to employ them again in the defence of the Bank. For the assault upon the Tower a notable expedient was hit upon, quite of a piece with all the rest, and certainly not very flattering to the female part of the population; for the forlorn hope was to consist of a number of white robed virgins; but they unluckily found that the metropolis would not furnish them with a number adequate to the enterprise. They succeeded, however, in producing a dreadful riot, and, as white-robed virgins were not very plentiful, they supplied their places with a few drunken old women, who issuing from the tipliog-houses of the Minories, discharged vollies upon the military, which I will rather leave to your lordships imagination than attempt to describe [Hear, and laughter]. Such being the plan, I will not fatigue the House by detailing the absurdities of the execution; the conclusion, however, was, that one grand division of the army of the rebels was routed by a single trooper, and the remainder received a total defeat, with the loss of baggage, artillery, ammunition, and stores, by the valour of a single alderman [Continued cheers]. Do I exaggerate? Why, I say that this was more ludicrous than any project ever invented as a burlesque and a satire upon the most absurd of mankind. I confess, the examinations of the witnesses to substantiate it were to me a source of the highest amusement: the plan, execution, and defeat, are parallel only to each other, all equally laughable; the civil, much less the military power, had nothing to do with this signal discomfiture: it was not only sedente et cunctante, but dormiente consule. Even the ordinary vigour of the law was not required for its suppression.—The noble marquis then went on to inquire how far a vigour beyond the law, as it had been termed, was necessary for the punishment of the offenders in these disturbances; but proceeding a step farther, to other persons charged with conspiracies in other places, he begged to know what there was in the existing law to prevent ministers effecting all they wished? Could they not arrest and confine, and thus avert the apprehended mischief; and when the conspirators were brought to trial, had not the old enactments been found competent to all the purposes of justice? Although the individuals engaged in the late disorders in
1058
the metropolis had been acquitted, did not their arrest, imprisonment, and trial, with the publication of the evidence afford a lesson to the people of England of moderation and loyalty, more instructive than, all the inflictions the wisest ministers might be empowered by act of parliament to impose? By the late proceeding the people of England would first observe the glorious triumph of British justice, as well as the manly fortitude with which the prisoners bore up against prejudice and calumny; but, above all, they would learn that which would make the deepest impression, viz. the dreadful arts by which these unfortunate men were led on to their last excesses. Seditiously inclined they certainly had been, in the first instance, if no higher crime could be imputed; and the lower classes, by the perusal of the evidence, would be taught the danger of taking counsel against the peace and safety of their fellow-citizens, and against the legal and constitutional authorities of the realm. It would instruct them to beware how they allowed men with dubious professions to approach them, and to instil into their ears the poison of sedition or rebellion; it would teach them the truth of the maxim of a great orator, "justa causa nunquam esse potest contra patriam arma capere." With these important truths impressed upon the hearts of the people, it might indeed be said, that public order and happiness would be established on a rock which the efforts of a world could never shake, and which the petty fortifications ministers were now erecting could neither strengthen nor defend.—These considerations now brought him to another part of the subject—how far these great and unnecessary powers actually instigated to crime, and aggravated the evil they were designed to remedy. The report of the secret committee admitted this fact: for it was there said, that in some instances the operations of persons who gave information tended to encourage proceedings they were appointed to detect. With regard to the seditious meetings bill, he did not deny that it was a proper and a useful measure: it had produced a salutary effect: but exactly the contrary was the fact with regard to the suspension bill: it had not only augmented the evil, but, as he was prepared to prove, that augmentation had been a necessary consequence. The noble lord opposite had denied any connexion with the informer Castle: but nobody had charged

1059
it: all that was asserted was, that the manner in which he had conducted himself showed, demonstratively, that his object, from the beginning was, to be a spy and a betrayer. The remark would more strongly apply to Oliver, who, being an accredited agent of government, actually suggested one of the most violent outrages committed in the course of the disturbances.—With regard to the general question respecting the employment of informers, no person had contended that their evidence as accomplices might not be sometimes necessary; it might become a positive duty on the part of ministers to receive it; but at best it was an odious duty, and such testimony ought always to be received with caution: it was a bad foundation for a proceeding in a court of justice; but as a reason for a legislative enactment, there was no epithet of absurdity that it did not deserve. One noble lord had asked, did not the free states of antiquity resort to informers? but, upon reconsideration, he must be aware that the question was at least put rather carelessly; since every person acquainted with history would admit, that if there were one point more than another in which the institutions of those states merited the terms odious and detestable, it was in the administration of criminal justice, and above all, in state trials. The death of Socrates was surely not to be recommended to this country as a precedent of justice and impartiality, or of the purity of the courts of Athens. The argument of the noble lords who opposed the measure was not against the use of informers, but against the abuse of them; for whether in ethics their encouragement could or could not be justified, it was quite clear that they had always been the most odious instruments of the most odious tyrannies. When once their employment became so rife as at the present moment, it was to be viewed with the utmost jealousy; and, as it had been sometimes said that the people ruled their rulers, it might not long hence be asserted that informers governed the government.—The great argument for the suspension was, that it was a measure of preventive justice; but how could it deserve that character, when, by its authority, persons were dispatched through the country, not to check, but to promote— not to control, but to instigate and inflame —not to diminish the growth of crime, but to cultivate and cherish it; to bring it to its utmost height and perfection, and
1060
to afford ministers an abundant crop of justice and punishment? Such a state of things would alter the whole course of our judicial proceedings. Surely it was one of the gravest objections that could be urged against the measure, that the effect of it was to produce a horde of unprincipled informers, who were interested in raising the crime to the law, instead of adapting the law to the crime. No greater calamity than such a state of things could be contemplated. When a man was arrested, imprisoned, and denied the possibility of clearing his character, and liberating his person by the verdict of a jury, and when all his countrymen saw that such might be their fate at no distant period, was it not giving to the people a real motive for discontent, and an excuse for disorder? The only advantage ministers gained was, that they need not bring their prisoners to trial; but in what way could this be beneficial? Did it not, on the contrary, create an unnatural ardour in the public mind, which engendered the reptiles whose purpose was to ensnare the innocent and inflame the guilty? Upon every ground on which he could consider the subject, he felt it his duty to give the present motion his direct negative.
The Earl of Harrowbymaintained, that from the result of the late trials, it could only be concluded, that the persons accused were legally acquitted; but it could not be concluded, that ministers would have been justifiable, if they had declined sending their case to trial. The dangers resulting from the combination of uneducated persons, could not be disregarded by any one acquainted with ancient or modern history. The successful revolts of such people in ancient Greece, must be familiar to the minds of their lordships; and it was notorious to all, that the taking of the Bastile, in France, was accomplished by persons of that description. He might also allude to the case of Despard in this country, and he would ask, could there be a plan more absurd than the one he formed, yet, happily, he was baffled. It was useless then to argue of plans being absurd, or of their being conducted by the lowest classes in society. He was persuaded the committee had done no more than its duty in recommending the further continuation of the suspension, for he firmly believed that much quiet had been introduced into the country since the passing of this act, which would not otherwise have taken place. Alluding to the insurrection in

1061
Leeds, it had, his lordship observed, been said that Oliver had been the cause of that insurrection. Now, he begged leave most earnestly to protest against such a doctrine, for the fact was, that government knew every fact connected with this conspiracy before Oliver was on the spot. He could not concur in the reproaches thrown out on spies, for he was of opinion that they were more or less necessary in every free country. As to the measure itself, he was persuaded it never would have been brought forward, had not government felt themselves called upon to do so from the most urgent necessity. Ministers had no cause to be charged with extending their powers; on the contrary, they ought, as he conceived, rather to be praised for their forbearance. It had been said that they had done nothing, and that when the people asked for bread they gave them a stone. Now such was not the case, for his majesty's ministers had only done what they conceived to be essential to the good of the country. To go no further than the poor laws, he would ask, did not their conduct on this show they were actuated by no other desire than that of adopting whatever measures should in the wisdom of parliament seem proper. They had done more, for they had made every possible reduction which in consistency with the public safety could be made. He concluded by giving his cordial support to the measure, from a conviction that it was essential to the liberties, and even the salvation of the country.
Lord Hollandsaid, that the present question before their lordships was simply this, what is the nature of the danger you dread, and what is the remedy you propose for such a danger? Much allusion had been made to the French Revolution, and, indeed, that important event seemed to have got such hold of the minds of some, that looking back to what had occurred, or forward to what might happen, they could think of nothing else. All he wanted to know was, whether the proposed remedy would do that good which was expected to flow from it? He would not particularly allude to the year 1791 as a precedent, because then the country was at war, and besides the conspiracy, if a conspiracy then existed, was connected with France, and supported by it. But surely such was not the case now, for in the very report on their lordships table, it was candidly admitted, that the great body of the people were loyal to their sovereign
1062
and the constitution. He was glad to see this admission, but it still confirmed the truth of what a noble friend of his had said, that while a few only were indicted, the whole body of the people were punished. To be liable to punishment, was in itself a truly serious evil; and this bill was in itself the greatest violation of the rights and privileges of Englishmen that could possibly take place. He utterly condemned the system of espionage which the noble viscount was bringing in. For the measure now proposed, not a single case had been made out. Allusions had been made to humouring the people; in reply to which he would state, that neither his friends nor himself had ever attempted to humour them, by sanctioning the wild and delusive doctrine of universal suffrage and annual parliaments. The truth was, that he who held out such miserable and impracticable theories to the people was their worst enemy. But certainly it became every friend of mankind to resist this measure, which was in truth an abolition of public liberty totally uncalled for. Plots never would be wanting to furnish a pretext for the suspension of this act, which, as the bulwark of liberty was to British hearts, dearer than life itself. He had never said, there was no danger; but he had contended, that the remedy was by no means suited to the disease, and could not produce the slightest possible good. The privilege of the Habeas Corpus seemed to be considered as a fine figure in a cavalcade on a holiday; but when the state was in the slightest danger, it was carefully locked up in a chest of drawers. The more frequently this privilege was suspended, the weaker our constitution became. He protested, in the strongest manner, against the grounds on which the bill was said to vest. The suspension had never before taken place on such flimsy pretexts, and he was persuaded that it would lead to the worst consequences.
The Lord Chancellorgave every credit to those who opposed the bill for their love of the constitution, although he thought their opposition altogether unfounded. He was not so absurd as to support the suspension of the Habeas Corpus, because there were many individuals who wished for annual parliaments and universal suffrage, and many others who preferred a republic to a monarchy. There were other and very different grounds for the measure. While he allowed to the

1063
noble baron who had just spoken, that the constitution recognized the writ of Habeas Corpus, as essential to the complete system of our liberties, it also recognised the principle, that we must be content mow and then to sacrifice the temporary enjoyment of its benefits, in order to enjoy them for a more durable period. The circumstance of the frequent suspension of the act was a proof of the recognition by parliament of the principle; and if he had not made a false estimate of the present dangers of the country, they were much greater than at any of the periods at which the suspension had hitherto taken place. Adverting to the observations which had been made on the late trials, and on spies, accomplices and informers, he observed, that long before he had heard the name of Castles, he had stated to his colleagues, that he considered the transactions which followed the meeting at Spa-fields to be, in point of law, high treason. With respect to spies, he allowed that they were liable to all the epithets which had been bestowed on them; but he maintained that government, when they knew of the existence of a plot in the country, were bound to employ such persons for the purpose of detecting and defeating it. It was quite a different thing to stimulate such an individual to go any farther. With respect to the person in Yorkshire, respecting whom so much had been said, their lordships would do well to suspend their judgment until the proper time should come for his noble friend to explain the circumstances of the case, and to remember that the authority of a country newspaper on the subject was very bad authority indeed.
The House divided:

Contents—presenr.

73

Proxies.

68

—

141

Non-contents—present.

20

Proxies.

17

—

37

Majority for the third reading. 104