Sitting of 6 December 1819

COVENTRY MEETING—PETITION OF MR. LEWIS RELATIVE THERETO.
Mr. Peter Moore, presented a petition from Mr. W. G. Lewis, of Coventry, complaining of the interruption which had been recently given to a public meeting held in that town. The petition stated that a requisition, signed by six or seven hundred resident householders of Coventry, had been presented to the magistrates, desiring them to convene a public meeting for the purpose of taking into consideration the melancholy events which had occurred at Manchester. The mayor objected to the manner in which the requisition was worded, and refused to call a meeting for such a purpose. In consequence of this refusal, the requisitionists called a meeting on their own authority, and the mayor then objected to the place. Determined to avoid giving the constituted authorities any just ground of reproach, the requisitionists changed the place on which they originally intended to have held their meeting, to a green at some distance from the town, whereby they deemed it impossible for them to disturb the peace of the town. After all this caution had been exhibited on their part, they had not the slightest anticipation that any attempt would be made to interrupt their proceedings; but, to their great surprise, in the midst of them, a body of constables burst in, and endeavoured to destroy the harmony of the meeting. It appeared that the constables were not authorized by the mayor to make this interruption, but were merely sworn in to act if necessary. The hon. member said, he was at a loss to conceive why it was thought necessary to interrupt this legal meeting of the people. No doubt could be entertained of the loyal and orderly conduct of the people of Coventry. He had, in the course of the last session, occasion to present to the House a certificate from the mayor and magistrates of Coventry, bearing their testimony to the loyalty of the inhabitants. The petition, he said, prayed for an inquiry into the causes of the dispersion of that meeting, but after an inquiry had been refused in the case of Manchester, he had little hopes of having it granted in this.
Ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed.

REFORM IN PARLIAMENT.
Mr. Lambtonrose to inform the House, that it was his intention, immediately after the Christmas recess, to bring the state of the representation under their notice. In order to explain the object which he had in view, he thought fit to state, that he should then move for leave to bring in a bill for the repeal of the Septennial act, and for the making of parliaments shorter and more frequent. At the same time he should propose the extension of the right of suffrage to all copyholders and householders paying direct taxes, and also the destruction of what were generally called the rotten-boroughs. In bringing the subject of parliamentary reform before the House, it might, perhaps, be requisite that he should explain his motives: he, therefore, made no hesitation in saying, that he did it because he deemed it a. subject in which all classes of his majesty's subjects, and particularly the middling and lower classes, were most deeply interested; and because he firmly believed that the compliance of the House with the feelings of the people on it, would tend more than any other measure to alleviate the present disturbances, at the result of which, if they were to be permanent, no man could look for a moment without experiencing the profoundest horror.

SEDITIOUS MEETINGS PREVENTION BILL.
Lord Castlereagh, on moving the order of the day for the recommitment of this bill, thought it requisite to state to the House, before it went into the committee, certain alterations which he had made in the bill, and which he conceived might vary the opinions which certain hon. gentlemen had formed upon it. The recessity of the first alteration which he should mention to them was suggested by the consideration that the bill, as at present constituted, would affect certain meetings which were now held, and which had no relation whatever to either church or state. As the scope and object of this bill was not to suppress discussion, but merely to put down those large and tumultuous meetings which had of late so frequently menaced the public tranquillity, fee had excepted from the operation of it the meetings held by the different trades, in order to consider any public matter of grievance affecting their interests. He had once thought of limiting the numbers attending such meetings; but as there
758
was nothing, on which it was so difficult to legislate as, numbers, he, should, instead of making any fixed number, as 300, the limit beyond which it would be improper to pass, say, that all their meetings that were held in private rooms and not in the open air were untouched by the present bill. With regard to that part of the bill which rendered it a misdemeanor for any person to attend a meeting who was not a freeholder, householder, or inhabitant of the district in which the meeting was held, it had been suggested to him, that a person might be accidentally there, and thus violate the law without intending it; he, therefore, submitted to the House, whether it would not be enough to make this clause apply only to those who wilfully and knowingly attended such meetings, and who refused to depart, after the proclamation for strangers to disperse had been read by the magistrates. Another case had also been put to him, that strangers might be purposely sent there; were they to be excepted from this act? By no means; if they remained after proclamation made, the parishioners might constitute themselves into constables, and carry before a police magistrate any person so staying there. It had also been thrown out, that persons having property in one parish, and yet residing in another, should be allowed to attend at the meetings of those parishes in which they had. property: he had no objection to such a proposal, and therefore would allow them to attend, if their freehold reached a certain stipulated amount, and had been in their possession a certain stipulated time. He had now stated the principal alterations which were to be made in the bill, and would not detain the House any-longer, than to say a few words on what had fallen from hon. members opposite, namely—that it ought to be a local and temporary measure. If it was to be made local and temporary, it would be better to entitle it a bill for propagating tumult and sedition; for if it were confined to certain counties, and was not to be extended beyond them, without either a proclamation of the council, or a recommendation of the lord-lieutenant and magistracy, could any person, who had viewed how little the radicals and their itinerant orators thought of marching twenty or five-and-twenty miles, doubt for a moment that they would transfer their meetings from the counties included in the act, to counties which were yet

759
untainted with their doctrines? And, considering the delay which would be necessarily incurred in gaining a proclamation of the council, would it be right to give them so much time during which they might circulate their notions with impunity? He, therefore, thought that the House would not be consulting either the interest, security, or tranquillity of the country, if they did not give to this bill a general operation. As to the policy of rendering this measure one of temporary duration, he had previously stated to the House his impression; and he was now, on further reflection, convinced of the propriety of it, because it was expedient to deprive all future meetings of the tumultuous and menacing character which they at present possessed. He had, however, no objection to pass this bill under restrictions similar to those which the House had adopted upon former occasions. When the Granville act was passed for the decision of controverted elections, parliament was fully aware of the necessity which existed for enacting some permanent law on that subject; it did not, however, at once determine that the Grenville act should be that law, but passed it for seven years, in order that the country might have full experience of its efficacy before it was entered as a permanent act upon the statute-book. It was to such a view of the question that he had now bent his judgment. A right hon. gentleman opposite had said, that he should certainly move, that this measure should only be of temporary duration.
Mr. Tierneybegged leave to correct the noble lord. He had only said, that he would make a motion to that effect, if no other member in the House was found willing to do it.
Lord Castlereaghtrusted, that if either the right hon. gentleman or any other hon. member proposed an amendment to that effect, they would not limit the duration of the measure in question to too short a time; for he could assure them, that nothing would, in his opinion, be more prejudicial to the safety of the country, than to pass such a bill for an inadequate period. At the same time he would candidly inform them, that if the period which they proposed appeared to him sufficiently long, he would not object to their amendment. What he conceived ought to be the shortest period was five years, and to the end of the session of parliament ensuing immediately after their
760
expiration. If, therefore, they should propose that period, he would acquiesce in the proposal; if they fixed on a shorter period, he should as certainly oppose it. At all events, it was his determination to take the sense of the House on the propriety of rendering the measure of a general nature; neither should he submit to limiting its duration to a less period than five years, unless he was compelled to do so by finding a majority of the House entertaining a different opinion from his own. He then moved, that the bill should be re-committed.
Colonel Beaumontmaintained, that a measure of this nature ought not to be passed for so long a period as five years, but from one session to six weeks after the commencement of the ensuing session, till the danger which called for it ceased to exist. The hon. member was proceeding, when he was called to order by
The Speaker, who informed him, that if he had any alteration to propose in the bill, it must be either done in the committee, or by a mandatory instruction of the House to the committee, to take such alteration into their consideration.
Mr. Tierneythought that the most solemn course which the House could adopt would be to give mandatory instructions to the committee to limit the duration of the measure either to five years, or any other period which they might think proper to appoint.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, that if the instructions to the committee were of a general nature, he should not oppose them: if they were specific, he should oppose, or amend, or agree to them, as he should think good, after they were proposed to the House.
Mr. Curwensaid, it was now clear to the House, that the noble lord found the bill itself so faulty, that he was obliged to propose very material alterations in it. He hoped the noble lord would proceed in the same way, and would make alterations still more important. He did not think the measure was called for by the state of the public mind; he did not think the power or the influence of those who called themselves the leaders of the radical reformers, was at all of the nature that had been represented; he acknowledged, however, that it was both important and desirable that those persons should be put down; they should not exist in a well-regulated government. He would gladly

761
lend his support to measures for their suppression. The bill before them would not effect that object—it would not put down the radicals; it would not accomplish the objects it had in view. He was convinced that if the noble lord had expressed in. that House a favourable opinion of reform, the radical leaders, who were objects of contempt and abhorrence, would feel most affected and distressed at that declaration. The noble lord had admitted that the great body of the people were sound in their principles; why, then, should he innovate on the rights of the whole people—why should He introduce a measure which went to impair the constitution? This, he feared, was but the beginning of a system which might be carried further, to the injury and misfortune of the country. Why did not the noble lord apply those measures, which, under alarming circumstances, were found effective in other parts of the empire? In Ireland the Insurrection act gave power to the magistrates to prevent all meetings; he thought such an act preferable to the present measure. The noble lord had stated, on a former occasion, that he was anxious to conciliate the country. If he was sincere, he had now the opportunity; but that object was to be gained by measures far different from those which ministers pursued. He could, not but complain of an attempt made by gentlemen from the treasury bench to implicate the opposition side of the House with the radicals. Such conduct he considered extremely unparliamentary and unfair. He could not but disapprove of the conduct of the right hon. member for Liverpool, not now in his place. He had made exaggerated statements of the public situation, which he (Mr. Curwen) could not agree to. As to the conduct of the magistrates of Manchester, he never did believe they had been guilty of the great cruelties imputed to them; but he did believe they had been guilty of great rashness and indiscretion. The noble lord had spoken the other night of the jealousy and discontent of the disaffected, and of the leaders of the reformers; but did he think that jealousy and discontent were confined to these? He could assure the noble lord, that a great proportion of the people—of the loyal and respectable people—were extremely jealous of the measures of ministers—that they doubt very much of the noble lord's veneration for the constitution, or regard for the liberties of the
762
people. The noble lord could not doubt but that this was the real feeling of the country. Those measures had sunk deep into the public heart. Many late measures, indeed, had disgusted the country; particularly, he would say, the act of Indemnity which had passed that House— an act which was opposed to the principles of justice—which deprived individuals of redress, whose liberties and whose fortunes were invaded, and who were deprived of all means of vindicating their innocence, if they were innocent. He disliked, he said, the principle of the present bill; yet if it were limited to one year, he would support it. He would wish for a measure more intelligible—he would prefer a bill similar to the Irish Insurrection act, which would give power to the magistrates, to prevent all meetings, if they thought necessary. He would give them that power for a limited time; because no one who knew the magistrates of this country could suppose that they would exercise that power unjustly. He repeated, that the danger of government was not most to be apprehended from visionary men— there was a danger of greater magnitude. The best informed, the most respectable were of opinion, that there was a power operating on that House, which did not make it the provident and faithful guardian of the public purse. They desired reform—it was expected speedily—and if the House did not grant it, he feared it would be reformed in a manner which no rational or moderate man would wish. He should lament to see any reform which would go to overturn the constitution. Distress was one of the great sources of the public discontent—distress created by taxation. This distress, no bill, no measure of coercion, would mitigate. It was impossible to continue their manufactures to the extent that they had been carried on. They should look to other sources of prosperity, besides the sources of foreign markets. When he heard the assertion of the noble lord, with respect to the distress of this country as originating from the distress of America, he was astonished. He was satisfied the noble lord would not assert what he did not think was true, but it only proved that the noble lord had not paid that attention to the real situation of the country which he ought to have paid when he made that statement. We had practised on foreign countries an unmixed system of monopoly; but they

763
would now practise that system against us which we had practised against them. As an evidence of this disposition, he would mention, that when government laid a duty on rape seed, the Dutch imposed a duty on rape cake, which prevented its importation into this country. If the noble ford would look into the real situation of the country, he would find that her whole resources did not exceed three hundred millions, whilst her taxes amounted to sixty millions. In such a state of things, great alterations were necessary—much of reform—much of conciliation and of wisdom to save her. The bill before the House was evidently drawn up in a hasty manner. He would state one clause of it. A person subject to the penalties of the bill was liable to be brought immediately before the judges of assize or of sessions, to be put upon his trial; he was entirely to depend upon the favour of the judge for an opportunity to produce his witnesses, and to prepare his defence. He had no doubt what the feelings of the judges would be, remarkable as they were for a tender and a pure regard for the liberties of the subject; but he asked, was this a situation in which persons charged with an offence against law should be placed. It was desirable that the executive government should have the confidence of the people, yet he felt it his duty to state, that he believed the executive had not that confidence, and that the measure before the House was not one which was likely to obtain it.
Mr. Vesey Fitzgeraldexpressed his satisfaction at what had fallen from the noble lord, and entirely concurred in the alterations suggested. He concurred also in the principle of the bill immediately before the House: in Ireland it had been carried into execution with effect, and without danger, though he could not persuade himself that it could be made local in Great Britain without an increase of the peril it was intended to diminish. One of the amendments of the noble lord he particularly approved, as without it the Catholics of Ireland would not have been able to assemble and approach the throne by petition. This change proved that it was not the design of ministers to interfere with the exercise of legitimate rights that did not endanger the security of the country. He might safely assert, that in no instance, for many years, had the meetings of the Catholics been attended
764
with a display of popular strength, or any attempt to intimidate the government. In Ireland, the meetings of the Catholics had invariably been under cover generally in some of their places of worship; and if the amendment of the noble lord did not precisely meet that case, it could be more distinctly worded in the committee.
Sir Robert Wilsonfelt himself called upon to resist the principle of the bill, and the aggregate system of measures that were now to be imposed upon the country. He had had frequent opportunities of hearing them defended, but never successfully; and it was his conviction, from a strong sense of what was due to the good of his country, that the series of bills recently brought into parliament ought to subject the noble lord to articles of impeachment [Hear]. He repeated, that they ought to subject the noble lord to articles of impeachment, for they introduced capital innovations—they introduced arbitrary power, and subverted the real elements of the constitution. His object was not to use inflammatory language, not to excite feeling out of doors. This was a crisis when every member was bound to express his conviction strongly, that he might not aid and abet in the ruin of his country. The condition to which it was now reduced had been occasioned by misrule, by a total inattention to the views and wishes of the people; by a refusal to listen to their complaints and to redress their wrongs. This denial of justice, this determination not to listen but to proceed in the same wild career of extravagance, was heaping coals of fire on the heads of the people—pouring oil of vitriol into their angry wounds. The noble lord had taken credit to himself for lenity in these measures, inasmuch as he had not subjected to the penalty of death any person who persisted in remaining at a parochial meeting, though it had no riotous or tumultuous character, excepting what he derived from the presence of that individual; but he would assert that if this system was persevered in—if the government of the law was to be converted into a government of force—if tyranny was to be established on the ruins of liberty, he cared little who were to be the ministers of the Crown, or whether he himself was to be one of the first or the last of their victims. He would never relinquish the course he was pursuing; and he trusted that the people would never abandon the rights to which they were born. "Ad

765
decus, ad libertatem, nati sumus; aut hæc teneamus, aut cum dignitate moriemur." With regard to the particular bills, he must observe that training and drilling was already an offence, and he admitted that government was bound to protect itself; but he entreated the House to look at the bill for seizing arms, for seizing them by night as well as by day, under which any individual, with whatever motive might make a deposition before a magistrate, and procure the house, the castle of a man to be broken open and entered at midnight. Suppose the constable, armed with his authority, came for the purpose, what knowledge had the housekeeper of the warrant? and for defending himself against those he considered the spoilers of his property, he might not only be tried for murder, but for rebellion. Suppose men in military uniform (for every thing was now done by the military) were to come and insist upon admission; the housekeeper, unsuspecting their real purpose, and knowing that he had nothing to fear from a search, might open his door and thus admit those who had availed themselves of this disguise to plunder his house and outrage his family. He begged to read to the House, as a contrast to the present measure, a sentence from a statute passed in the reign of William 3rd, when it was believed that the papists had designs against the peace of the country, and had accordingly provided themselves with weapons of offence. "Any two or more justices of the peace may from time to time, by warrant under their hands and seals, authorize and empower any person or persons in the day time, and with the assistance of a constable, &c. to search for arms." Such was the law in the time of king William; no search could be made but in the day; yet in the year 1819, the power was extended either to the night or day. And what was the excuse for this change—for this invasion of the rights of Englishmen? Truly, nothing, but the tyrant's plea, the plea of Richard 3rd for one of the murders he had committed:
"What! think you we are Turks or Infidels!
Or that we would, against the form of law,
Proceed thus rashly,
But that the extreme peril of the case,
The peace of England, and our person's safety,
Enforced us to this execution?
With regard to the bill restricting the freedom of the press; the noble lord
766
had very kindly informed the House that he did not mean to abolish the trial by jury. So it appeared; but the very mention of the possibility of such a thing showed that it had at some time or other entered into the contemplation of ministers; and every body knew that the conception of men in power were generally quickly followed by the acts themselves. It had been urged formerly by the noble lord, when the price of the stamp was raised, that it would interfere with the existence of a cheap press? Would not this new law interfere with the existence of a cheap press? Would it not prevent any man, whatever might be his talents, unless he had property also, from conducting a publication of the kind? Besides, it subjected every editor or proprietor of a newspaper to transportation on a second conviction; and men of character would not run the risk of embarking in such a hazardous undertaking. If this step were allowed, others must follow; and we should go on from invasion to invasion, until a writer was reduced to the situation described by the author of Figaror—"Provided I say nothing against the powers that be nothing against religion, politics, or morals — nothing against the court and its vices—against somebody, or any body that may be somebody, I may be at liberty to publish what I please—subject nevertheless to the provisions aforesaid."[A laugh]. He had great respect for the chief body of the clergy; their lives were devoted to their laborious profession, and were examples to the rest of the community; but the, church ought not to forget that it was a church of peace and charity, not of war and intolerance; and its ministers ought not to exchange the pastoral staff for the ensigns of magisterial authority; they ought not to be employed in levying war against the people of England. He trusted that gentlemen would take care how they lent their support to such a system as was now attempted to be imposed upon the nation; they ought to recollect that it was most costly—that if persevered in, it must increase the taxes; and that, with the increase of taxes, distress and disaffection would be augmented. Let not gentlemen flatter themselves that the venerable fabric whose foundations were now assailed would last their time; and that if it fell, its ruins would only injure their posterity Louis 14th had exclaimed, "After me the deluge;" but here danger

767
was at hand; national bankruptcy and revolution would soon open the floodgates of popular fury, and ministers and their adherents would find no ark to which they could fly for shelter. A requisition had been circulated and signed in Southwark, and another was in progress through the whole metropolis; but the noble lord had not allowed time to ascertain the sense of the more distant parts of the country. Supposing he was able, to carry his projects through by triumphant majorities, what would the people say, but that the House of Commons did not care for their opinions, or regard their interests? [Some symptoms of impatience by coughing, &c. were here expressed]. He was aware that what he was offering must be very offensive to many gentlemen, but he must do his duty; it would be most of all unpleasant to a certain class of members to whom the noble lord had alluded on a former night, when he contemptuously said, that all the pensions in the list did not amount to the, wages of the radicals for a single day. True, but did the noble lord flatter himself that the people would not see through this shallow argument? Were they not fully aware of the importance of abolishing pensions when they saw that it was by virtue of them that the noble lord could come down to the House, not only without the fear of punishment, but with the certainty of triumph, to outrage privileges held sacred from time immemorial, and recognized in the Bill of Rights, the violation of which was an act of suicide on the part of that House, destroying its own power, and annulling the relationship between the people and their representatives. But one mode now remained for saving the people, and that mode was, for independent men of all parties to combine in erecting a constitutional standard, and the motto "Nolumus leges Angliæ mutari."
Mr. Grenfellsaid, that he should not have risen but for the observations of his hon. friend who had just sat down. No person in the House heard the gallant officer with greater satisfaction than he did on any question but a political one: on those matters they were as far divided as the Poles. He had commenced by observing, that the noble lord deserved impeachment for introducing the measures now under consideration: if that impeachment were extended to individuals who heartily concurred with the noble lord,
768
he (Mr. Grenfell) would be happy to bear his share of the crime and the punishment. [Cheers.] The gallant general had further asserted that he was not in the habit of using inflammatory language, either in the House or out of it. Had the memory of the gallant general totally failed him? Had he forgotten what had passed not long ago at a meeting in the borough of Southwark? Had he forgotten the memorable occasion when he shook hands—when he publicly gave the fraternal embrace to Mr. Hunt? Continued cheers from all sides.] On that occasion, if the reports in the public journals spoke truly, the gallant general had asserted, that England was the most degraded country on the face of the earth. Was not that inflammatory language? Next he had maintained, that the time must arrive when the House must repent of the measures it now thought wise and necessary. If he (Mr. Grenfell) should at any time have occasion to give vent to his useless sorrow at the decision he now felt justified in making, the gallant general would be the last man he should ask to wipe; away his unavailing tears, [continued cheers.] He would not follow him through his observations in detail upon the bill, but he would take that opportunity of stating, that if the measure against seditious meetings was limited to any period short of that named by the noble lord, it would be of no benefit, and the object in view would he utterly disappointed.
Sir R. Wilsonsaid, he hoped the House would allow him to say a few words in explanation. He had never known Mr. Hunt before the meeting in Southwark; but he certainly did then give him his hand, because he conceived that he had been greatly injured, and because in Mr. Hunt's person, his own rights, and the rights of all, had been violated. He gave him his hand as a pledge that he would go hand in hand with him, to exert all his efforts as a representative in order to obtain redress. In doing so, he conceived that he did no more than his duty; but he would have felt himself disgraced if he had given his hand to any of those who had their hands stained with the blood of their countrymen, and of those who had sanctioned their conduct.
Mr. V. Blakeobserved, that he had given all the attention in his power to the gallant knight's arguments, but he entertained a totally different opinion respect-

769
ing this measure, and others connected with it. He considered them measures for the preservation of the country against the dangers which threatened it. If amputation was necessary for the preservation of the vital parts of the constitution, he should have agreed to it: but he did not think that necessary, nor did he consider these measures as affecting any part of the constitution. Such speeches as were made in that House by the hon. knight and others near him, afforded to the disaffected an opportunity of deluding the distressed. He was perfectly sure that nothing was farther from their intention than to occasion such an evil: but however excellent their hearts might be, their heads appeared not so well suited for public discussion as they thought them. They had convulsed the country with complaints, because of the refusal of that House to institute an inquiry into the events at Manchester. It was extremely ludicrous to see them urging inquiry in such circumstances; for let them only consider in what situation they would be placed if an inquiry were gone into, and that House were to address the Prince Regent, praying that the attorney-general should prosecute certain persons. Without inquiry, criminal informations could be applied for, or bills might be presented to the grand jury, or civil actions might be brought; but if the attorney-general were to prosecute in consequence of the ad- dress of that House to the Prince Regent, he must file informations ex officio, and the accused could at once put his hand into his pocket and produce a plea in bar by presenting the letter of thanks. An inquiry would therefore be the surest way to prevent the accused from punishment, if they were guilty.
Mr. Ricardosaid, he was anxious very briefly to express his opinion on this subject. He thought that, in the course of this discussion, sufficient attention had not been given to the importance of the right to be curtailed. If the people's right of meeting and petitioning consisted only in the right of meeting to petition for the removal of grievances, it was not of so much importance, and the curtailment of it was not of such serious interest. But the right was, a right of meeting in such numbers, and showing such a front to ministers as would afford a hope that bad measures would be abandoned, and that public opinion would be respected.
770
It might be compared, in this view, with the right of that House to address the Crown. If the right of that House consisted in passing resolutions only and if they could not follow up their resolutions by refusing the supplies, and by culling up a spirit of resistance in the country, the Crown could despise their interference. It was the same with the right of the people to petition. If they could not meet in such numbers as to make them be respected, their petitions would have no effect. At the same time, he admitted, that those meetings were attended with very great inconvenience. It could not be denied that circumstances might arise when the government should be fairly administered, and yet distress might arise from causes which the government could not control, and wicked and designing men might produce a great degree of mischief; it did not appear to him that such meetings were the sort of check which ought to exist in a well-administered government; but it was necessary to have some check, because if they left men to govern without any control in the people, the consequence would be despotism. The check which he would give, could be established only by a reform of parliament. Then, instead of petitioning, and from the worst part of the people perhaps, being the check, that House would be come the best check which any government could have, and with that check the people would be perfectly satisfied. He had read with surprise the abhorrence of radical reform expressed by several members of that House. He believed there were among the advocates of that measure, designing and wicked men. But he also knew that there was a great number of very honest men who believed universal suffrage and annual parliaments were the only means of protecting the rights of the people, and establishing an adequate check upon government. He had the same object as they professed to have in view; but he thought that suffrage far from universal would effect that object, and-form a sufficient check. He therefore thought it would be madness to attempt a reform to that extent, when a less extensive reform would be sufficient.
Mr. Alderman Waithmansaid, he felt great reluctance in addressing the House; but his duty as the representative of so conspicuous a body superseded his reluctance. He concurred in the opinions of the hon. gentleman who spoke last, so far as

771
they went. The House were called upon, in the most extraordinary way, to adopt measures affecting the rights and liberties of the people, without giving the people sufficient opportunity of knowing what passed. It was impossible that the people could know in some parts of the country what was doing, for even the city of London had not yet been able to present their opinions to the House, though he believed the sheriffs were now at the door with them. It was three months since the events took place on which those measures were founded. If the necessity for passing such measures was so urgent, why had not parliament been called together earlier, in order to give the people abundant time to meet and to express their sentiments? It appeared extraordinary that ministers should have been so well assured of the illegality of the meeting at Manchester, as to have at once issued thanks in the name of the Prince Regent, and yet that they had not previously informed the people of the illegality. At least the time had now arrived when they ought to state the grounds on which their thanks were founded: but he was yet, after having seen the papers on their table, as much in the dark as ever. All the legal authorities in that House were unable to come to an opinion as to the legality or illegality of the meeting. In a case of so much doubt and difficulty, was it right, was it proper, to disperse the meeting in a manner which terminated so calamitously? An inquiry was called for, not merely in order to ascertain the conduct of the yeomanry and of the magistrates, but to ascertain the conduct of his majesty's ministers, and what communications they had previously had with the magistrates. A meeting had been held in Smithfield some time before the meeting at Manchester, and it was then the opinion of all the legal gentlemen, the learned gentlemen opposite included, that the meeting was perfectly legal. The whole of the measures adopted with regard to that meeting had been pre-concerted. Harrison was to be apprehended, and the military were to attack, if any resistance had been made. He knew these things perfectly; as he was the representative in the common council of the ward in which the meeting was held. At that meeting a great body had attended from mere curiosity to know what passed. If any resistance had been made, if an arm had been lifted up, the military would have
772
been called in, and the same scenes would have followed which were occasioned by the interference of the military at Manchester. He was, therefore, of opinion, that the magistrates would not have so acted, unless they had instructions from ministers. His opinions upon such meetings were known to Several members of the House. He thought them dangerous, impolitic, foolish beyond description, and particularly injurious to rational reform. His majesty's ministers could not have found more effectual means than such meetings afforded for injuring rational re-form, and for obtaining such measures as those now before them. But if the example of lord Fitzwilliam had been generally followed, gentlemen of character and talents would be listened to and respected, and visionary and itinerant orators would not be attended to. That House was called the grand inquest of the nation; it was so, not merely to inquire into the concealment of arms, but to inquire into the oppressions of ministers. It might be said, there were no oppressions, for ministers were such good sort of men, But the people said there were oppressions. Let the grand inquest inquire into it. All the remedies hitherto applied had failed, The Habeas Corpus act had been suspended; but when the suspension was removed, the people were worse than ever. It was therefore necessary to inquire into the real causes of complaint. Declarations of loyalty had come from part of the people, but at the head of such declarations were always to be found persons who held places or received private favours from the government. There was no doubt of the loyalty of such men. Certainly not; and why did they profess their loyalty but in order to brand all others with a charge of disloyalty? Were two-thirds of the nation who called for inquiry and redress to be disregarded, and acts passed in that House to their prejudice, merely because one-third, and these either self-interested or influenced, made loyal declarations? He had attended popular meetings for five and twenty years, and was representative of a ward containing 4,000 families; and he could assure the House that he had found more intelligence in the lower and middle classes than certain gentlemen were disposed to give them credit for. He always thought that their notions of reform were wild and visionary, and destructive of their own object; but when they were charged with desiring a revolution, he

773
could not refrain from expressing his astonishment at a charge so unfounded. Was it not known that sir Robert Raymond, afterwards lord chief justice of England, had advocated the same opinion? Was it not known that they had been the opinions of one, than whom a purer spirit never appeared before the tribunal of his maker? He meant Mr. Granville Sharpe The people had read and reflected upon the subject of parliamentary reform. They understood the source of their grievances as well as any member of that House. They erred only in their estimate of the necessary remedy, it was the fashion to speak of the people as a different species—as if they were insects or worms; and every butterfly-gentleman, when far succeeded in emerging from among them turned round and said, I have got wings.; I leave the people behind me; Jet their impertinence be repressed." The object of many measures lately passed was, to break down the middle classes; and the consequence now was, that they could not afford labour and wages sufficient; to the working classes. Did the noble lord suppose that his coercive measures would counteract the: effects of impolicy and excessive taxation? No; the noble lord did not think it. Why did he first propose this measure to last for ever and now propose it for five; years, but because he knew that it was not-sufficient as a remedy? Distress, discontent, and irritation would not thus be remedied, nor could they be thus effectually suppressed. They would burst forth like a volcanic eruption, sweeping everything along, and destroying all in their course, if, that House did not apply a sufficient remedy. If they gave this remedy to the in noble lord, would he be satisfied? No; when they put down meetings (to use a favourite phrase) by such measures, they must also have 10,000 or 12,000 men added to the military force of the country. It was all a piece of trickery. It was part of a system to abolish the Bill of Rights. Because the people had shown a formidable front, and petitioned for the preservation of their liberties, they must now be driven back. But he could tell the House, that if they passed a resolution that they would take the grievances of the people into consideration, and if, as a means of doing so, they dismissed his majesty's ministers—instead of complaints, they would have addresses of congratulation from all pans of the country. They talked of pre-
774
serving the constitution: was it now found inadequate? We had rebellions and insurrections in the country, and yet the constitution survived. It had been the fashion of late to suspend the Habeas Corpus act; but the object now was to put down the constitution. If this bill should be effectual for five years, the people would never again meet like Britons. In a period of the reign of Charles 2nd, the people petitioned for the assembling of parliament, for the parliament was then with the people, and the courtiers congratulated the king upon his deliverance from parliament. It was not so now, for parliament was occupied in deluding the king, the people, and themselves. Then the House of Commons expelled sir Thomas Withens for expressing his disapprobation of petitions to the king to assemble parliament. They addressed the king against sir George Jeffries, recorder of London, for his activity in the same cause. Sir George was then in great favour with the court of aldermen, as he perhaps would be with the aldermen of the present day. There was silence for some years; but the consequence of those violations of the rights of the people was the Revolution; and if the noble lord succeeded in his measures now, the same consequence would follow. Ministers appeared to have taken that page of history for their model, so far as that was possible in the present state of opinion, and of the public press. It was, indeed, still conceded, that lord-lieutenants, sheriffs, and mayors, could call meetings, but the first could be dismissed. Sheriffs might be appointed on the recommendation of-lord-lieutenants, and the House knew how mayors would act. The lord mayor of London had refused to call a common-hall when three million of new taxes were to be imposed. The House was now legislating without evidence. Anonymous evidence was no evidence. The 7,000 armed men turned out to be all men in buckram. The lord mayor had said, that he had evidence on oath that fire was to be pat to the city, and the inhabitants to be murdered. Why was not that evidence on the table? The lord mayor must have contributed the important information to lord Sidmouth. He could not suppose that any lord mayor would have said so, if he did not believe it. If, then, the lord mayor of London was so practised on, must not others have been practised on in the same manner? The districts that were now alleged to be

775
disaffected contained 1,000,000 of inhabitants. Our armies were principally recruited from those districts. If they were to be so recruited again, they would willingly enter the army; for, as an ingenious writer had eloquently said, they would see "that death was less certain, and more honourable, in the army than at home." But how could such troops be relied on? When there had been danger of invasion, the cry was, "Let us all unite;" and parliament put arms into the hands of those men. But we were told, that the difference was, that now disaffection stalked abroad; that then a foreign enemy was to-be opposed. But the disaffection was either, entirely imaginary, or forced by distress and misgovernment. Even the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act was not so formidable as this measure, because, then, the people might meet: they could then have the assistance of men of talents to stimulate them to acts of energy. If this bill were to make it imperious on magistrates to call meetings, and if they were to preside, and only to see that no stranger addressed those meetings, the measure would be less objectionable. How was the slave trade abolished, but by meetings all over the country, and by individuals travelling for the purpose who got much credit for their conduct? If he were to use such language as had been used on a similar subject by lords Chatham and Camden, against lord Loughborough for, preventing the remonstrance of the city of London from being received, he should excite such, a storm as would oblige him to sit down, and perhaps call forth the rebuke of an hon. gentleman Taxes had not been reduced, though the value of property had fallen, more than half. The same lavish expenditure was attempted to be supported by diminished means. If those who were represented as so dangerous were let alone, the whole cause of alarm would soon subside. At the last meeting in the city. no radicals had attended: but there was a strong feeling for rational reform throughout the country. To give freedom by means of reform to the people, was the only means of restoring tranquillity now, and of being prepared for any emergency.
Mr. Wilsonobserved, that it seemed pretty generally admitted on all sides, that the evil arose from want of employment and from heavy taxes. Was it possible, then, to remove these causes of discontent? He should be most happy if the poorer and the labouring classes of so-
776
ciety could be convinced of the impossibility. Of this, however, all who heard him must be satisfied: every member of that House well knew that the unfortunate state of things to which he had alluded could not be done away, that our manufactures must continue depressed, and that taxes must continue to be paid. He was not, he trusted, insensible to the sufferings now experienced, nor, in giving his support to these measures, did he conceive that; he was; preventing their mitigation. The condition of the lower orders he hoped soon to see ameliorated. But it appeared to, him that the proposed measures were necessary, if were only for the purpose of showing that the sentiments often pronounced at public meetings were not the unanimous sentiments of the county. It had been urged, that the people had not sufficient confidence in that House, and that in their belief a majority of it gave its votes as a matter of course to the ministers of the Crown. But was not this likely to be always the case? And if the gentlemen opposite were to come into power, would they not think themselves also justified in making use of the patronage of government? For one, he must frankly say, that he preferred the term of five years for the duration of the bill now before the House to a shorter period: a shorter time would, he thought, only serve to keep men's minds in their present state of agitation. As long as that should continue, there would be a necessity for in- creased expense, and an enlarged military establishment. He wished to see that necessity at an end. With these impressions, and adverting to all the circumstances in which this country was now placed, he felt it his duty, as an honest man, and an Englishman, to vote for the present measure.
Mr. D. W. Harveycould not agree that the true remedy for the grievances of this country was to be found in the multiplied and complicated provisions of the system now recommended to their adoption. So far from allaying the present discontents, or putting an end to existing evils, he believed these enactments would aggravate and increase them. There were, in his opinion, but two certain and effectual remedies; one, a diminution, or perhaps rather an equalization, of the taxes; the other, a parliamentary reform. The former was, perhaps, that which called for more immediate attention. There were many persons who had large property,

777
and especially in land, who derived advantage, instead of suffering loss, from our present system of taxation, connected as it was with the whole system of our internal policy. A given rental might pay a larger amount of taxes than it did thirty years ago, but that rental was itself augmented in a much more considerable pro- portion. A landed proprietor of 5,000 l. per annum was before charged with perhaps 300 l. a year: he now paid double that sum, but his entire estate had also, during the intervening period, been doubled in value. Had manufacturing or any species of labour experienced a similar advantage? He concurred with the view lately taken of this subject by a noble lord; he wished to see the duties on salt and other articles subjected to an excise differently modelled, and, if a property tax was to be resorted to, that it might be attended with various gradations, and fall chiefly on the richer orders. Nothing would more completely satisfy the minds of the labouring classes that their interests were consulted, and prove to them that there was a disposition to sympathize with their wants and sufferings. He had, however, one very strong objection to the measures before the House. They were bound to consider, when they were about to create new powers, to whom it was that they intrusted them. His majesty's ministers had lost the confidence of the nation upon this subject. It had expected that parliament was called-together for the purpose of going into an inquiry respecting it, and his own constituents had abstained from publicly assembling to consider the transactions at Manchester under this persuasion, conceiving that, as a full investigation would so soon lake place, their meeting might for regarded as a mark of their disposition to prejudge the question. This had been a general belief, but the county was disappointed. The learned gentlemen on the other side had contended, that the House was an inadequate tribunal, and that the subject would come more properly under the cognizance of courts of law. The hon. and learned solicitor-general had, a few nights since, made a triumphant appeal on the ground of the inquest at Oldham. He had asked whether it was right to take the question out of the hands of a court specially constituted for the purpose of conducting inquiries of this nature? What now had become of this reasoning? For his own part, he must declare that he had
778
a very sincere respect for the judges of the King's-bench, but he could not understand the grounds on which they proceeded in putting a stop to the inquest. It appeared to him that they had gone out of their way on that occasion. It was new to him to find a man allowed to convert his own wrong into a justification of himself. The coroner was absolved from the necessity of resuming an inquest in consequence of his own irregularity; and what chance was there now that the merits of the case would ever be ascertained? The court had, indeed, referred to the grand jury, and stated that the matter might be safely left to that tribunal. No doubt a grand jury would discharge its duty; but it had been admitted in that House, that they had a peculiar protection thrown over them. They could not be called upon, in consequence of their oath of secrecy, to divulge the grounds on which they acted. With regard to this point, however, he would here mention a case which had been recently decided at York. A prisoner was on his trial for felony, and the of the witnesses against him was under examination. A member of the grand jury, by whom the bill of indictment had been found, happened to be present, and was so struck with the difference between the witness's testimony there and what he had sworn before the grand jury; that he thought it his duty to apprise the judge of it. The latter conceived that it was essential to the ends of public justice that the witness should be indicted for perjury. A bill for this purpose was preferred to the grand jury, and upon the evidence of one of themselves the man was indicted and convicted. It was deemed right in that case, for the paramount ends of justice, to release a grand juror from the obligation of his oath. In the case of the transaction at Manchester, there was a general persuasion, that al-though the grand jury might not have ignored bills contrary to evidence, yet that they had refused to admit certain evidence. This sometimes happened on election committees, and he recollected an instance of two sitting at the same time, and one of them determining that treating was bribery, and the other that treating was not bribery. The cause of this difference was, the rejection of evidence in one room, which evidence was admitted in the other. It might have been possible that the Lancashire grand jury conceived that if Derbyshire were indicted, no proceedings

779
could be had against Mr. Hunt and his friends, and therefore threw out the bill against him. There seemed to him, however, to be an absolute necessity for inquiry into all the transactions at Manchester. The very first letter of the papers submitted to the House was a very important document. It represented the disturbed districts to be in a state calculated to end in a revolution, and it was remarkable that it was dated on the 1st of July, several days before the prorogation of parliament. No allusion, however, was made to it in the speech from the throne, and parliament was allowed to separate with some general advice only, to maintain order in their, respective neighbourhoods. This furnished some reason for believing that ministers wished the evil to go on, till it assumed some tangible shape, and should enable them to bring forward these portentous measures. He believed, however, that their only tendency would be to exasperate and increase the disaffection already prevailing.—He had now but a very few observations to make on that other question of sovereign importance—he meant a reform of parliament. It had been too successfully endeavoured to confound this subject with the views of the radicals. He could not agree indeed with all the terms of reproach which had been applied to the latter. They wished for what they considered suitable remedies to all the distempers of our condition. He had lately suffered from an internal complaint, and was desirous of a radical cure, but this his physician could not undertake, though he promised him considerable relief. His own principle with regard to parliamentary reform was narrowed to this—that the House should contain no member who did not, al fixed periods, revert to some public body, to whose praise or condemnation he should be subject, whilst dismissal or re-election should depend on their judgment of his conduct. This, he believed, would be satisfactory to the public, but they would not be satisfied whilst they saw so many members who had no constituents. He did not wish that the House should be converted into a mere organ of the sentiments of others, for that would be incompatible with their character as a deliberative body. The principle of reform which had stated went to no such extreme, and could, he thought, be obnoxious only to those who looked to their seats as a source of profit to themselves.
Lord Stanley, in consequence of his having been so pointedly alluded to, rose to submit a few observations. He certainly had been, no doubt unintentionally, very much misconceived. The hon. gentleman who spoke last was wrong in supposing that he had admitted, that a grand juror's oath threw too great a protection over him. He had said, that the Lancashire grand jury were able to justify their conduct, but that they would not violate their oaths. Unquestionably, however, that obligation might be removed by the interference of a superior court. The hon. member, he apprehended, had derived his facts from the statements contained in Mr. Hunt's petition; in which it was alleged, that the grand jury had been actuated by feelings and prejudices against him. He wished to speak with tenderness of all persons who addressed themselves to the House; but he must say, that there was no authority for the assertions of the hon. member in this respect.
Mr. Bootle Wilbrahamasked, whether the hon. member for Colchester meant to state that the grand jury refused to receive the evidence of Derbyshire?
Mr. D. W. Harveydid not mean to say any such thing. All he had asserted was, that on public grounds it would be desirable to know the reasons which influenced the grand jury to ignore particular bills. They might have ignored them by adopting a particular rule, and acting upon it to the exclusion of a certain line of evidence, which, if admitted, would perhaps have led them to a different result.
Mr. Bootle Wilbrahamstated, that the grand jury had made no such rule, nor refused any particular evidence.
Mr. Hutchinson, after lamenting, the painful necessity in which he found himself, of trespassing upon the attention of the House, after the speeches that were made by his hon. friends round him, warmly defended his hon. and gallant friend from the attack made upon him by the hon. member for Marlow. He was the more ready to repeat and justify every expression made use of by his hon. and gallant friend, as he was so much in the habit of connecting his feelings and interests with his own upon every occasion. Before he proceeded further, lie begged to ask ministers, whether it was their intention to extend the provisions of this Bill to Ireland?
Mr. Grantreplied, that it was intended to include Ireland within the operation of the bill.
Mr. Hutchinsonresumed, and with great animation recalled the attention of the House to the speech of the noble lord, when he introduced this bill to their consideration—a bill which would be for ever connected with his name. Did not that noble lord, in his opening speech, contrast the peaceable state of Ireland with the disturbed condition of England?— Did he not express his pride and satisfaction at seeing what he termed the peaceable and prosperous state of a country with which he was so nearly connected? Why, then, did the noble lord talk of the peaceable and tranquil state of Ireland if he meant to visit that country with the pains and penalties of his bill of coercion? What was the noble lord's intention by adopting such a delusive course? Did he mean to deceive the seventy Irish members who voted with him on the former night, and to induce them to give their support, under the idea that though England was to be coerced, Ireland was to be free? When the noble lord, with his usual douceur of manner, and apparent modesty, even though introducing a measure of such tremendous con sequence, made this allusion to the state of Ireland, what was his meaning? Why the delusion? He intreated the Irish members to recollect the declaration of the noble lord as to the tranquillity of their country, and to couple it with what they now heard of the intention to include Ireland in the operation of this Bill [Hear, hear! and some coughing from the ministerial benches.] Gentlemen might interrupt him if they pleased; they might manifest a readiness to vote away the liberties of their own country, but they must give him leave to defend those of his—such at least as remained to his country in her present state. When the noble lord had talked of the prosperity of Ireland, he did not believe him, though he was ready to admit its peace and tranquillity, and to assert its claim for an exemption from the operation of these bills.— Nothing, he must say, could be more outrageous than the conduct of the noble lord, who, upon evidence of his own showing, part absurd, part anonymous, grounded the necessity of measures subversive of the most essential privileges of the constitution, notwithstanding the many flat contradictions which this evidence had received in both Houses of Parliament. It seemed the noble lord, even with his majorities, did not feel himself on quite as
782
safe ground as he at first imagined, when he now came down, and in smooth and flowing numbers, admitted the limitation of the bill to five years existence. It was to be hoped that before this night passed away, a feeling of a similar description would prompt the noble lord, notwithstanding his bold declarations, to make the bill local, instead of general, in its application. He begged pardon while he said that there was something so outrageous and offensive in the mode pursued by the noble lord, that he was afraid to give vent to the feelings which it excited in his breast. The ministers, in bringing forward these measures, came before their country with false colours. Were these the glories that followed the labours of upwards of half a century of administrations like the present? Were these the laurels which the people were to reap after the termination of a war unparalleled in its renown, but for which no thanks were due to ministers, though none could be too much for the brave soldiers and their great captain, who had won them by their spirit and heroism? Was it in the fifth year of profound peace with the world that ministers were to claim confidence, when they avowed that sedition and treason raged among their own people, and that they could only be eradicated by bills of pains and penalties? [Coughing on the ministerial benches.]—He trusted gentlemen would refrain from interrupting, him: he meant to be brief, but if this interruption were persevered in, he should Only have to detain them longer, as he was determined to express his opinions, and he would extend them to tenfold length, if these attempts: were renewed. — He was old enough to recollect the proceedings of governments and parliaments in Ireland, and to remember the cruel oppressions that were practised upon the people, when the noble lord was in, as well as when he was out of office in that country. He recollected when any honest man who interposed between the people and their oppressors was coughed down in parliament by the purchased majority of that day. What had been the result? The grievances of the people were met by coercion—the country at length became goaded to madness, and a devastating rebellion was the result. The history of those sad times in Ireland presented a spectacle for deep contemplation. There were those in power in that day who were eager to

783
see the people draw the sword, that they themselves might have a pretext for throwing away the scabbard. The vices which human nature exhibited once, she again threw forth at other periods, and he meant no offence to any particular individuals when he avowed his full and thorough conviction, that there were persons in the country at this moment, who, for their own black and malignant purposes, were ready and eager to drive the people into acts of outrage which might furnish a pretext for putting down that people at the point of the sword. If parliament lent itself to such persons it would stand degraded in the eyes of the people—it would forfeit its character as the guardian of public liberty. They were told, indeed, by ministers, of the nations of the continent that were saved by the vigour and valour of their councils. He denied the assertion, and declared that the nations of the continent were saved by themselves, and not by his majesty's ministers. The proof of the estimation in which ministers were held on the continent, could be easily put to the test. Go to any court in Europe, and see the contempt in which they were held—go to any people in Europe and see the scorn and derision which were heaped upon them: they were universally despised and detested. So long as the strength of the continental people rested upon the influence of rotten thrones, it crumbled, and they owed their existence as nations to whatever of generosity was bestowed upon them by their conqueror, Buona-parté; when at length an accumulation of oppression roused the people to resistance, they expelled the previous conqueror, his own people refused him obedience and oppressed nations conquered—not France, but Napoleon. He had no words in which he could adequately express his admiration of the military glory acquired by this country during the late eventful war; but the noble efforts and heroism, which consummated it, would, he feared, have been vain, if the people of the continent had not to a man risen and assisted in the expulsion of their oppressor. But this glory belonged to the people, and not to the ministers. Where had they the suffrages of any once prostrate nation for its redemption? Would the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Canning) whose eloquence was so exercised in defence of the measures of his colleagues, and who had but just returned from the continent, say from what state he had pro-
784
cured a certificate of attachment to his majesty's ministers? Did he obtain one from the fallen and expelled people of Parga? Was it from the people of Genoa he received an eulogium upon the merits of the British ministers? If it were not was it from dismembered Saxony, or did Belgium resound their praises? What did France say of their acts? They suffered, as friends, their parties to enter her states, and they remained there as invaders. To crown all, in the fifth year of peace, the people of this empire—the people whose energies and perseverance, under every sacrifice, enabled ministers to carry to the full length the whole of their war measures, were now to be put down by coercion—they were to receive chains in return for their efforts and their confidence—and these were to be rivetted, without even the preparatory form of any inquiry.—The hon. member, with great force, condemned the whole policy of his majesty's ministers on the present occasion: at home and abroad it was alike disgraceful, condemned, execrated, and despised. Why was it that, under such circumstances, appeals were made to rally round the throne with loyal addresses, when no danger for the stability of the throne could at all be contemplated while no efforts were made to rally round the people and the constitution, and to save both from the pains and penalties that were alike levelled against them? He then condemned, in pointed terms, the proposed duration of the bill, and its extension beyond the local places of disorder.
Mr. Grenfellappealed to the House, whether, as had been imputed to him by the hon. gentleman who last spoke, he had said that the gallant general fought better than he spoke. As to the expression, that "the country was degraded," he had not said that it had been used in the course of this debate; it had been used three months ago by the gallant general on the hustings at Southwark.
Mr. Barhamwas of exactly a contrary opinion to that expressed by the hon. gentleman respecting the character which this country sustained in the estimation of foreigners; for if any Englishman was not satisfied with that character, he must be unreasonable indeed. He did not know any thing of Parga; but with Genoa he had long been acquainted, and he knew that, whatever might have been the sufferings of that people, they did not ascribe those sufferings to England. If

785
the hon. gentleman would go to Genoa, or into Saxony, he would find the highest opinion, entertained of the character of this country. As to the main question, he thought it his duty to support ministers on the measures before the House. His opinion that such a measure as the present was necessary, was founded on the illegality of those meetings which it was the object of the bill to suppress; for he could not suppose that any thing so dangerous to the peace of this country as these meetings were, could be legal. As to the conduct of the Manchester magistrates, he believed they had acted in the discharge of a difficult and delicate duty; and as to the yeomen, he could not bring himself to believe that a body of Englishmen were capable of acting with the wanton cruelty which had been imputed to them. But while he agreed with ministers on these points, there was another question on which he entirely differed from them; for he was of opinion that these proceedings were of such a nature, that they ought to have been inquired into. He did not believe that the House of Commons had fallen into such contempt as had been alleged by the hon. gentleman, but that, on the contrary, it was still respected by the majority of the people, He did not doubt, however, that this respect would be greatly diminished, if an inquiry into those proceedings was denied; and therefore he was convinced that no evil could arise from inquiry, equal to the evil that would result-from denying it. The construction likely to be put by the country on the refusal of ministers to institute an inquiry. Was, that they were afraid of something coming out that would not bear the light. —He thought the present measure ought to be restricted to those parts of the country only that required it, because, to punish the whole kingdom for the offence of some districts, comparatively small, was certainly not a measure likely to promote conciliation. He was not a reformer himself. He had no objection to correct abuses by applying the laws with proper severity in all cases of corruption; but he would not introduce any new principle into the system of representation. As to the principles of Radical Reform, he conceived that if they were adopted they would lead directly to the abolition of monarchy and the subversion of the constitution. He looked, however, on
786
the right of petitioning to be one of the most valuable and useful privileges of the subject, when judiciously exercised; and, therefore, the House should be guarded in making any law that would trench on this privilege. He appealed to the chancellor, of the exchequer, whether the property-tax would have been repealed, but for that resistance which this measure was calculated to prevent in future. The slave-trade, also, had been petitioned against; and there the result had proved the good effects of expressing temperately the sentiments of the people on great measures. At the time of the American war, the people were for peace, and peace was accordingly granted to them; in the revolutionary, they expressed their desire for wary, and Mr. Pitt continued it; in short, on every memorable occasion the good effects of listening to the voice of the people through their petitions, had been clearly proved; but now ministers, by this measure, were going to cut asunder the link that connected the parliament with the people.
Mr. Hutchinson, in explanation, disclaimed any intention of stating that the national character of England was degraded upon the continent, as the last speaker appeared to think.—What he meant to say was, that the policy and practice of the British cabinet was universally deemed to be disgraceful upon the continent—that in fact, that policy and practice were odious in the estimation of every intelligent man in Europe.
Mr. Knoxsupported the motion; but as he spoke under the gallery, and in a low tone, we could not catch a complete sentence from the hon. member throughout his speech.
Mr. J. Smithrose, he said, to take notice of some erroneous and mischievous reports which had been lately propagated, and with the origination of which he could not suppose that government had any concern. He could not, indeed, suspect the members of the government of descending to any unworthy expedient for the purpose of producing an effect in debate. But he lamented to say, that some reports had recently gone forth from high authority, which were materially calculated, and which did actually operate, to affect the credit of the country.— He alluded particularly to the report mentioned elsewhere, that there were no less than 100,000 men in a state ready to

787
be called out for open rebellion, in the line between the Weir and the Tyne up to Carlisle. Now he would take leave to say, that this statement was not true, because it was impossible it could be true, for there were not 100,000 men in the whole of the district alluded to capable of bearing arms. The population of the counties of Northumberland, Durham and Cumberland, comprehended within the district alluded to, amounted, according to the Census of 1817, to 480,000; and supposing 70,000 to have been since added, which was rather a liberal supposition, that addition could not be conceived to include more than 10,000 men capable of bearing arms.— This conclusion he founded upon the authority of those able writers who, especially in the course of the French Revolution, had illustrated the number of men capable of bearing arms, which could be rationally looked for among a certain amount of population; and he was fully persuaded, that the district to which he referred could not produce 100,000 men capable of bearing arms, even if the lord-lieutenants of the several counties were, with all the clergy, to be included.— Such an extraordinary statement, then, as he had mentioned should serve to put the House and the public on their guard against similar exaggeration, and the more so, as the propagation of such statements was calculated to do serious injury. For example, the statement upon which he had animadverted, coming as it did, from a nobleman of great property and consideration in the country (the duke of Northumberland) had had a very serious effect upon public credit on Saturday last. Several persons, indeed, were known at once to-take proceedings for transferring their property from our own to foreign funds.— For his own part, he had never done, nor would he ever do any such thing; because it was his resolution never to desert the vessel of his country in its distress, but, on the contrary, to cling to it while a plank remained to swim upon.— But upon the same ground that sustained this resolution, he must lament the delusion of others, and deprecate the cause which gave birth to such delusion. Delusions of this nature must always serve to do mischief; for any report that created alarm, was calculated to affect public credit, which was the more to be deprecated at present, as it must operate to
788
produce an unfavourable exchange, and so raise the price of bullion, at a time when the Bank was called upon to commence payments in bullion. In every view, then, he condemned such groundless fears as had induced him to address the House; for although the finding of 100,000 men capable of bearing arms in the district referred to was quite as improbable, or rather as impossible, as that Rutlandshire could furnish 20,000 such men, or Bedfordshire 50,000, still there were minds upon which such stories were likely to operate, and such minds ought not to be practised upon.
Sir Isaac Coffinsaid, he would vote for this measure because the constitution was in danger, and he was sworn to defend it.
A Gentleman, whose name we could not learn, deprecated the propagation of groundless alarms, and expressed his: disinclination to vote for making the present a permanent or universal measure. He thought some such measure necessary in certain districts, but he would have is apply only to such districts, and he would rather vote for it if it were only to continue for one year, or three years at farthest.
Sir Robert Herondeclared, that he was so: perfectly and entirely opposed to the bill, that no limitation could reconcile him to it. No case could be stated which would, for a moment, reconcile him to any measure that he deemed to be an infraction of the constitution; and he conceived it would be much better for ministers to take the responsibility of such a proceeding upon themselves, than to endeavour to procure for it the high sanction of that House. On the subject of the Manchester meeting, it was not his intention to detain hon. gentlemen for two minutes; but this he must say, they had been frequently told that they were not to prejudge the conduct or the motives of the magistrates of Manchester. His duty told him, that they were now assembled as the representatives of the people, and it was especially for them not to prejudge the people. Till evidence was offered such as was to be relied upon, to the contrary, he was bound not to suppose them guilty. In the whole course of the observations which had fallen from those who assumed a different position, he had heard but one remark in the shape of an argument; and that was, that the reforms which the meeting in question was assembled to discuss, were no other

789
than so many projects of sedition; but if that was the case, Mr. Speaker himself was guilty of disseminating them: "for you, Sir (continued the hon. baronet, addressing himself to the chair) whose conduct has entitled you to the esteem of this House, and of the country— you, Sir, have always directed that the petitions which have been presented to us for similar objects should be printed, and copies of them, under your eye, have, been circulated among hon. members." Respecting the meeting at Birmingham, indeed, there could be no doubt; but he could not think that it was always necessary to exercise the utmost severity against the people, even when their proceedings had assumed a character of illegality. Mr. Speaker had not suffered, he believed, by the election of the "legislatorial attorney," and if he were to attempt to take his seat among them, he would meet with a reception likely to occasion disappointment and vexation to himself [Hear!]. The worst measure of all, as connected with the Manchester business, however, was the letter of thanks to the magistrates. The people had been long accustomed to receive from the throne solace in their sufferings, and commiseration for their distress. The fountain of mercy and justice in this case, unhappily, had been polluted; and, as far as it was in the power of ministers to do so, the father of his people had been converted into the head of a faction. The people petitioned for relief, because they were miserably distressed; and what answer was the House about to return to their petitions? That they had raised a new army [Hear, hear!]. Yes, they had raised a new army, at a time when they had already one which it would be impossible long to pay — one for which there could exist neither demand nor necessity at home nor elsewhere, because of a state of general peace. In conclusion, be had only to express his utter dissent from the principle and provisions of the bill.
Sir C. Moncktook the opportunity of stating, in reference to what had been reported to have occurred in another place, that he did not believe the population of the northern districts alluded to could afford the numbers which were reported to be actually engaged in plans of disaffection. He at the same time was most confident that the noble duke who was said to have made the statement, would not have made it unless he fully credited it.
Mr. Brownlowdefended the conduct of the Irish members who supported the present measures, from the implication conveyed in the speech of the hon. member for Cork. It was asserted by him that seventy members from that part of the kingdom, were deceived by the noble lord as to the fact of their extension to Ireland. He denied any such inference. The Irish members who supported these measures of security did so under an irresistible impression of their necessity. It was because they had witnessed in then own country the symptoms and effects of a growing rebellion, that they hurried from their homes and families to ward off from this most favoured land those violences, the misery of which had been experienced in Ireland.
Mr. Hutchinsonstated, that until that night he had not the remotest idea that the bill was to extend to Ireland. What he had said in his speech went to charge the noble lord with the deception practised on the members of that part of the country, who thought they were alone imposing those severities on Great Britain. In the bill, as it now stood, there was no mention of the united kingdom.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, it was probable the hon. member was not in his place when he opened the subject to the House; if he was, it was impossible but he must have heard him directly state that it was intended that the bill should apply to every part of the kingdom.
On the question being put, that the bill be recommitted,
Colonel Beaumontobserved, that it was unnecessary for him to take up much of the time of the House. He rose for the purpose of expressing, in the first place, his wish that an instruction might be given to the committee. But he trusted that every hon. member, who, like himself, belonged to no particular party, would not feel himself committed by the vote he might have given in regard to this bill. He meant to move, that an instruction be given to the committee, to the effect that they should limit the duration of the bill, so as that its operation might not extend beyond the 1st of March, 1821. It would have been most gratifying to his feelings if such a measure could have been altogether dispensed with. He was proud to say, that from the first moment in which he had had the honour of sitting in that House, he had kept himself quite unconnected with any

791
party. His sole object had ever been the support of the constitution, and of the rights which it involved, in their original, ancient, and long-established vigour. He need not enlarge upon the immense importance of the subject before the House — important in every sense of the word; but he must take the liberty of differing from the opinion advanced by a noble lord on a former night, that this bill was not, in fact, an infringement of constitutional rights. Had that noble lord contended that it was called for by the circumstances of the times, he should have been most willing to allow the fact; for he thought the necessity of it, for the preservation of our rights, our liberties, and our property, was so clear, that he could not imagine any of those honourable gentlemen who disapproved of its provisions would argue that it was of itself unnecessary. It had been stated by an hon. member, that the minds of the people were more likely to be kept in a state of agitation and ferment by a bill for one year than by one for five years. But he did not see how it was to be proved that the people of England could forget all their duties, their rights, and their loyalty, at the end of one year, as if they were impatient to resume seditious practices. He should therefore move, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill, that they make provision to limit the duration of the Bill to six weeks after the commencement of the next Session of Parliament."
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas desirous of taking the earliest opportunity to express his regret that he could not coincide in the motion of his hon. friend. It was of the very first importance that upon a subject of this nature there should be, if possible, an unanimity of opinion among them; and when his noble friend had stated his wish that the bill should be limited in its duration, and not permanent, he had hoped that he would have united all opinions. There were, however, very different opinions held, especially by the hon. gentleman who thought that no real or actual dangers threatened the country from within; but to such he was not now addressing himself. The case had been so frequently and so fully argued, that he had not the smallest hope of inducing any of them to recant their opinions. It was to those who thought it should be a temporary measure, that he now wished to address one or two ob-
792
servations. The evils which they were called upon to remedy had been growing upon us for many years. In 1812 they had assumed so serious a character, as to require the imposition of very strong measures; but in 1817, they had in-creased to such a degree, as to call for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act. And from that time to the present, al-though for a short period they were checked by the vigour of parliament, they had been increasing till they had attained the full maturity of mischief. A period of less than five or six years could hardly tranquillize the public mind; and he should therefore move, that, instead of the words in the proposed instruction of the hon. gentleman, the limitation to be for five years. The hon. gentleman who had proposed the instruction had not spoken of the period at which public tranquillity was likely to be re-established. And what was the reason? That by putting so short a term to the bill, he should force the government the sooner to adopt some measures of reconciliation. But he had not told them what those measures were to be. He had heard, indeed, a good deal from honourable gentlemen who entertained views about parliamentary reform—a subject upon which, by-the-by, he had not yet heard any two gentlemen agree as to their plans; but to suspend precautionary measures, or subject them to considerations like these, would be a sacrifice of public prudence for a mere effusion of popularity. Another hon. gentleman had said, that if this bill passed, no meeting could be legally held to oppose the property tax, or any other unpopular measure. Now, he begged leave to remind him, that the meetings which were formerly held upon that subject, were convened, many of them, by the sheriffs; and completely proved how much the public voice influenced the proceedings of parliament. Upon the whole, it appeared to him, that this bill did not take away from the people any one of their rights or liberties, but was calculated so to regulate and modify them, as to ensure their proper and salutary exercise. Moreover, the proposed term would afford the country full experience of the effects of this measure. He could not but complain of the erroneous statements which had been so often made in that House against his majesty's government, namely—that without sufficient time for due consideration, they had approved of the conduct of the

793
Manchester magistrates. He was anxious to explain to the House the real history of that fact. On the morning of the 17th of August the first accounts of the meeting reached them by express. On the 28th, two gentlemen, who had arrived with full information of all the circumstances, were examined by his majesty's ministers: on the 19th and 20th they appeared before the law officers of the crown, and all the members of the cabinet: and it was on the 21st, and not before, that the letter in question was written. But, to return to the subject before them, he considered that a period of five years was as short a time as could be assigned to restore the public tranquillity. Under this feeling, it was impossible for him to support a shorter limitation, and he should therefore move, by way of amendment, to leave out the words, "six. weeks after the commencement of the next Session of Parliament," and to add instead thereof "five years, and from thence to the end of the next Session of Parliament."
Mr. Calcraftbegan by observing, that if the right hon. gentleman had not, in the termination of the speech, entered into a defence of the thanks which his majesty's ministers had given to the magistrates of Manchester for their conduct, he should not have now spoken upon that subject: it was his decided opinion, that in a transaction which involved the name of the Prince Regent, they should have taken more time, and exercised more care. The present proposition was wrong from the noble lord—the House might easily discover by what—by those large divisions which the noble lord had seen op-posed to him. The concession Was not owing to any sympathy for the people, to any feeling for their liberties, which were violated, to any wish for, or attempt at conciliation, no, but it was owing to the conduct of those independent gentlemen who had honestly exerted themselves to prevent the passing of so extraordinary a measure upon such grounds But what was the precedent resorted to for this measure? Why (and it showed the extremity to which the noble lord and his colleagues were reduced), the only one which could be found for this experiment on the liberties of the people—the only one which the noble lord could find, after rummaging over all his books—was the Grenville act; but the House should recollect, that in that case a power was
794
given up which had been abused, and the aid of the other House of parliament was called in to establish that new judicature. Looking to the proposed amendment, and anxiously wishing for something like conciliation, he conceived that the term of fourteen months in the original proposition was too long for such an experiment on the liberty of the subject, and long enough for that inquiry into the state of the country which he thought ought to take place before any strong measure was agreed to. When the inquiry into the proceedings at Manchester was refused, he could not bring himself to believe, that no inquiry would be instituted into the general situation of the country. Something, he thought, should be done, in order to ascertain and provide some remedy for the distress which prevailed in the country. When this subject was alluded to, it was said that gentlemen fled off immediately to the question of reform, as a universal remedy. He did not think so; voting for reform, as he always had done, he did not conceive that that alone would be a sufficient remedy for the evils which were complained of. At the same time he would admit, that a wise and temperate reform would produced powerful effect in conciliating the people, and whenever the subject should come before the House, he would give it his best consideration. His panacea fob the present distress was, that an inquiry should be instituted, in order to ascertain how many were thrown out of employment, and to devise some means of assisting them. For this purpose he would give his vote for a sum of money out of the public purse, to take off the present pressure of distress, until it should be seen whether trade would revive, and bring matters back to their for me channel. He had agreed to a vote for the relief of the sufferers in Russia. He had voted for loans to some of our colonies; and should it now be said, after the House had agreed to those votes, that in consequence of the conduct of a few demagogues, no inquiry should take place into the state of the people, and no assistance be given in their distress? His advice was, that a trial should be made, in order to see what could be done: this he said to prevent being taunted with urging the question of reform as the only remedy. He spoke of an immediate substantial remedy—of bread and meat; which, he maintained, should be procured

795
for those who were labouring under severe pressure; and he felt satisfied, that if such relief were afforded, the itinerant demagogues would soon be without followers. He did not mean to underrate the alarms which were felt for the state of the country; he would, on the contrary, admit that there were bodies of men inclined to do mischief, but he denied that they could overturn the state. That was a result which he could not contemplate from any thing which was alleged of what had occurred in any part of the country; it was a danger which he did not and could not apprehend, on such grounds as were before the House. But while danger was thus talked of, was it considered that there were 11,000 additional men added to the standing army of the country? Was that no ground of security against the danger which was feared? He thought it was; and he would rather depend upon it than upon all the measures which the noble lord could devise. Were not the whole of those measures, connecting them with what he had just alluded to, sufficient to exasperate the people? Were they not rather calculated to snake men desperate than to conciliate them in this period of general distress? But it was said, that the distress was only temporary. Why what had been the case whenever any stagnation of commerce, or manufacture, or revenue took place; it was said to be only temporary; but this discontent which was the effect of that distress, was to be considered as permanent, and it was so intended to deal with it. God forbid he should assert, that if the revenue was declining, something should not be done to support it; but what had the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer done? Why, in those periods of alleged temporary distress, additional burthens were laid upon the people — new taxes, in proportion to their inability to bear them. Could this step be productive of conciliation? There was also the grant to the duke of York; what effect had that produced in the minds of the people? The sum of 10,000 l. a year could not certainly be considered as very great in the national (expenditure; but such were the circumstances under which it was given that, almost every class were agreed in looking upon it as wasteful and extravagant. And yet following up such measures as that, with those which were now proposed, ministers complained that they (the op-
796
position) could not agree with them. It was said to them (the opposition), "Why are you not satisfied to join us now, when we come with open arms to receive you—when we are willing to conciliate?'' He would answer, that such measures could not satisfy them, because they were not such as would produce conciliation; because they were uncalled for by any circumstances connected with the state of the country. It had been said, that this bill might be limited to three years. He would object to any extension of it beyond that which was mentioned in the proposition of the hon. member; He conceived that period too long for the suspension of the liberties of the people, and, as he had before observed, quite long enough for the inquiry which he maintained ought to take place into the state of the country.
Mr. Bankescontended that if the bill were limited to the short period proposed, it would, instead of good, be productive of considerable mischief. The hon. gentleman proceeded to notice the insurrection under Wat Tyler, and the historical acts connected with it; he also adverted to the disturbances that had been occasioned in Flanders by a party, like the radicals of the present day, wearing the distinguishing mark of white hats. After-adverting to several of the circumstances connected with public meetings, he arrived at the conclusion, that some permanent law was required for their regulation; and he concluded by repeating that he thought fourteen months much too short a period for the duration of this bill.
Mr. Fowell Buxtontroubled the House with reluctance, but it was overcome by a conviction of the necessity of stating the motives for his vote, on a question of such, acknowledged magnitude. He differed from the hon. gentleman who proposed that fourteen months should be the duration of the measure, as he was convinced that in that interval the existing ferment would not have subsided. Another and an invincible objection to it was, that if it were so limited, it was certain that at the end of a year it would be effectually defeated. But if he differed from the hon. member, he differed also from the noble lord. The period proposed by ministers was, he thought, much too long. When an inroad was made upon the constitution (and he considered this measure a most important inroad upon it), it ought to continue for the shortest possible period. Still more

797
was he opposed to the reasons urged on the other side for the longer continuance. The noble lord had declared that he thought the bill would be an improvement on the constitution; but he was content to take it as our forefathers had left it, without any alteration beyond what pressing circumstances required. Surely it could not be seriously argued, that the complicated machinery of petitioning five magistrates, or the majority of the grand jury, in case the sheriff refused to call a meeting, was an advantage not enjoyed under the old system. A right hon. gentleman on a late occasion, with a facility of language peculiarly his own, had supposed a case in which he should be called upon to instruct a mere stranger on the laws and constitution of the country, its external and internal policy, and in all the arcana of government. If such a task had fallen to him (Mr. Buxton), he would have referred the stranger to that part of the bill which called upon any justice or justices, if they thought fit, to prevent any individual from addressing a meeting, and inflicted severe penalties on parties resisting or refusing to obey. What would a stranger think of such a law? Suppose a magistrate, endeavouring to retrieve his broken fortune by a supererogation in zeal and loyalty, should deem it right to stop an individual who was casting reflections on the government. [No, no; hear.] Honourable gentlemen would observe, that it depended on the discretion and interpretation of the magistrate, and he might order any speaker at the meeting to prison for resistance; and then a clause of indemnity was inserted to screen the magistrate in case death or wounds ensued, while the parties resisting were subjected to transportation. The stranger to whom he would show this part of the measure might study from that time until doomsday, and not at last discover that this was an improvement upon the constitution [Cheers!]. The arguments on this question had been so exhausted, that he should confine himself to evidence. He lived in connexion with a class of the community not the richest nor the poorest, the tradesmen of this country; and the more he had seen of them, the more he had learned to admire and respect them. Among them prevailed the most genuine attachment to the principles of the constitution. It had been insinuated that they were disciples of Mr. Hunt; but the celebrated minority
798
of 84 at the late Westminster election was sufficient evidence to the contrary. Next it was said, that they were the disciples of Carlile; but he was convinced from intimate knowledge, that the indignation of the House against the pernicious doctrines of that man was not so great or so sincere as that which was felt by the great body of the tradesmen of this kingdom; they feared that the odious principles recently promulgated would make an inroad upon their children, and destroy the harmony and happiness of their domestic circle. A force of this kind might easily be collected round the government and the constitution that would set at defiance irreligion and disaffection. It must be accomplished, however, by satisfaction and conciliation; and if it were asked, as it had been, what plan of conciliation ought to be adopted, he would fairly say that he would begin by rejecting the present bill, which was to suspend for five years a valuable part of the constitution. He firmly believed that that single act would give more satisfaction, would diffuse more content throughout the whole empire than any other, and would produce more tranquillity than all the laws of force and compulsion that could be brought into action against the people. Another measure of conciliation, and a measure of the utmost value at this time was, a declaration of economy, followed as it ought to be by carrying that declaration into effect. There was a glaring inconsistency in the argument of a right hon. gentleman (Mr. Peel), on a former night; he had shown with great clearness and truth, the wide difference that existed between the inhabitants of Manchester and of other parts of the country—that when trade flourished, the inhabitants of Manchester were contented; and when it was depressed, that they were clamorous for the remedy of some supposed grievance. Yet what was his conclusion from this admitted state of things? That the law which might be so necessary for Manchester ought to be inflicted on the whole British empire [Cheers]. He concluded by stating, that if any gentleman would move that the present bill should be limited to three years, he would support it; but if not, he would rather vote for the extended period of the noble lord, than for the short time proposed to be inserted in the instruction to the committee.
Mr. Percevalsaid, he was fully convinced that the bill would be attended with the

799
most evil consequences; that it would have an immediate and injurious tendency, and on this account he was called upon to oppose those with whom he generally acted. He would shortly lay before the House the estimation in which he held the right of the people to meet to petition the legislature. In the first place, it had been acknowledged by parliament, in his opinion, much more effectually in the temporary restrictions to which it had been subjected, commonly called gagging-bills, than it had been contravened by the statute of Charles 2nd. He was prepared to contend, that the meetings of the people to petition parliament, whether summoned or not summoned by the sheriff, was their undoubted and constitutional right. He held it to be a most salutary vent for discontent: the saying of Mr. Burke, that this right formed the safety-valve of the constitution, had been already quoted, as it merited, in terms of the highest applause. Let not parliament, then, when the commotion within was at its height from the extraordinary heat applied at the present moment, increase the pressure upon that safety-valve, and thereby perhaps occasion, or at least endanger, a terrible explosion. This might be called an active advantage derived from the right; but of a different nature was that benefit which was derived from the consciousness in the subjects of this country that their complaints could be heard, whenever they thought fit to lay them before their representatives. It was this that gave an Englishman that proud character of independence, that distinguished him from all the nations of the earth. Was it nothing, he would ask, to destroy, or at the best to diminish, this proud independence. It was said that it was a dangerous right—a right that might be injurious to its possessors; but when we took even from the child the sword by which he might be wounded, and supplied its place by a leaden weapon, it exhibited some feeling of indignation at the cheat which was practised. The people of England had too much understanding to be thus imposed upon by those who affected to deprive them of their rights, under the pretence that they would be injurious. Surely there was something offensive in the words "parish meeting;" and this circumstance, trifling as it was, deserved attention, and the solicitor general well knew it, when, from the beginning to the end of his speech,
800
he so studiously abstained from employing them. It was answered, that if the people could not call themselves together, they might still be convened, as of old, by the sheriff or lord-lieutenant; but he had much doubt, whether after the passing of this bill, even those- meetings still allowed would not rapidly decrease. Such was his opinion of this bill, that though he thought it ought not to pass for one year, he would rather that it should be passed for five years; because, at the expiration of that period, the whole country would be so dissatisfied with it, and that dissatisfaction would be so loudly expressed, that there would be no difficulty in casting it away for ever. On these grounds, he should vote for the motion, which continued these restrictions for five years, rather than for that which continued them for three years, though he must confess that it was to the latter motion that he felt the best inclined.
A Member said, that he should vote for the amendment of the chancellor of the exchequer, because he considered this bill calculated to serve as a protection to our best and dearest rights. Nothing could be so dangerous to the constitution of the country as the tumultuous meetings which had recently taken place, and if they were allowed to continue, our liberties would certainly fall a sacrifice to them. The act ought to be continued so long as to render the cause which it was intended to repress desperate: this could only be done by continuing it for five years. If it was to be passed only for one year, the disaffected would resume their labours with fresh vigour, as soon as its operation expired.
Mr. Wilberforce, after complimenting his honourable young friend on the other side of the House, for the strong and ardent manner in which he had that evening-declared himself in support of the liberties of his country, gave his cordial thanks to the noble lord opposite, for having given up his intention to render the measure permanent. It was one of the peculiar excellencies of the British constitution, an excellency which none of the republics of old had ever enjoyed, to be able in times of popular commotion to strengthen the hands of the executive government; and afterwards, when the danger was past, to revert to our former state of liberty and freedom. He should have had great difficulty in bringing himself to vote for the measure, if the noble lord had determined

801
to persist in his original intentions; but now that he had so far conceded to the wishes of the House as to limit their duration to five years, he had not the slightest objection to strengthen his hands with these powers for that period. He should therefore advise the House, if they thought the danger to be so great as to justify them in passing the bill at all, to select that time for the period of trying its efficacy which was fixed on by the average opinion of all parties; because, if there was any injury done by passing these measures, it was in the way of precedent; and gentlemen who argued in behalf of their duration for three years rather than five, erred equally with their opponents against precedent, and, besides that, endangered the success of the measures themselves, by the reluctance which they evinced to grant the two additional years. This reluctance could only arise from the circumstance that they thought the danger not to be so great as was represented; and if that was the case, how did they reconcile it to themselves to vote for their continuance for three years? To confine these restrictions to certain counties, was also highly objectionable; because, if these radicals would abandon their principles in three years, under the restrictions now proposed to be established in their own districts, would it be right to allow them to have another field to which they might resort? Would it not be giving them a fresh place in which to carry on their trade and occupation? They all knew with what art those deluded and deluding men conducted their designs; and it was but too probable that the publications, which they would disseminate to effect their purpose in the districts not yet contaminated, would be of such a nature as would induce those who read them to go any lengths in the prosecution of the criminal objects held up as worthy of pursuit, though they would not be of such a nature as to render those who disseminated them liable to prosecution in the eye of the law. He should not detain them any longer at the present late hour of the night. He had only been led to express the sentiments which they had just heard from the love which he bore to the constitution, and the conviction which he felt that it was beyond all other things worth preserving. When he heard the question agitated, whether we were in the most danger from the encroachments of the Crown or of the people, he was at
802
first in some doubt; but when he recollected the character and views of such men as Hunt, he felt convinced that they were ten times more dangerous enemies to liberty than any bad minister in this country possibly could be: so that he felt himself justified in adopting the sentiments of the poet,
"Now, half a patriot, half a coward grown,
"I fly from petty tyrants to the throne."
Lord Miltonasked, what feelings ought to actuate the House when they passed their judgment on the present ministers, who, after acknowledging the value of the right of petition, had come forward and proposed to abrogate it for ever? The only right left by the present bill would be, not the right to meet, but the right to ask an officer of Crown for leave to meet.
Lord Clivewished to correct a misrepresentation, under which several honourable members appeared to labour in the course of the debate. A noble relative of his had never said that there were 100,000 men furnished with anus in the northern counties: he had never stated from his own knowledge whether they had arms or not; he had merely said, that their own estimate of their numbers and strength was to that amount.
Mr. Marryatsaid, he could not but regret that the question respecting the duration of the bill, should have been brought forward in the present stage of their proceedings: it would have been much more convenient, in his opinion, to have gone through the different clauses of the bill in the committee first, and to have settled the duration of it afterwards. If the clauses were filled up in that spirit of moderation which had marked the speech of the noble lord on the treasury bench, he should have felt the less difficulty in agreeing to the more extended term proposed; but if, on the contrary, when it came out of the committee, it contained what he considered as severe and unnecessary restrictions on the liberty of the subject, he should then vote for limiting its duration to the shortest possibly period. At present, the House were called upon to decide how long a bill should continue in force, the spirit and character of which they had yet to learn. As far as he could then judge, the period proposed by the motion was too short, and that proposed by the amendment too long; and he inclined to the opinion of the hon. member opposite (Mr. Buxton), that three years

803
would be a more eligible term than either. He thought six weeks after the commencement of the next session of parliament too short a period, because the House would have to decide upon the renewal of the measure, before sufficient time had elapsed to enable them to form a correct judgment of its effects; and to excite fresh agitation in the public mind, before the present agitation had well subsided. He thought five years, and from thence to the end of the next ensuring session of parliament, too long, because he recollected that the allied sovereigns, after stipulating by treaty that their armies should continue in the occupation of France for five years, considering that period would be necessary for the restoration of tranquillity in that country, voluntarily evacuated it at the end of three years. If then, France, at the conclusion of a war in which the passions of men had been excited to a degree of fury that perhaps never was equalled, could completely recover her tranquillity in the course of three years, surely this country, under present circumstances, could not require a longer term of probation. Being called upon to decide between two extremes, he considered, in the first place, that to re-new an expiring law, was easy, usual, and almost a matter of course; but to repeal an existing law, was on the contrary always attended with great difficulty. In the next place he Considered, that if he must err at all, it was his duty to err on that side that was most favourable to the rights and liberties of the people; and for these reasons he should give his vote for the shorter, rather than for the longer period.
Mr. Wynndid not consider the measure before the House an infringement upon the rights of the people. He denied that it confined that right; on the contrary, it left it undiminished. It was not illegal, according to the provisions of the act, to hold meetings within doors; and before the American war it never was the practice to hold meetings in the open air. It had been said that it was left to the discretion of officers of the Crown to call public meetings; but he did not know that the sheriffs of counties were generally speaking, liable to the influence of the Crown. He knew there was a spirit of loyalty throughout the kingdom that would be sufficient to put down, even by force of arms, the disloyal and disaffected; bus he had great confidence that it would
804
be unnecessary to resort to such a measure.
Mr. Maxwellbore testimony to the people of his county assembling in arms, and firing off pistols on retiring from the spot. He considered it under all circumstances, his duty not to oppose the measure of the noble lord. He saw no objection to its extending to the manufacturing districts for five years, and to the whole empire for one year.
Lord Comptonthought that circumstances would necessitate a much stronger measure if the present were not carried.
Mr. Benett, of Wiltshire, hoped that three years would be sufficient for the operation of the measure, as before that period, 'something might be done to better the' condition of the people. He trusted that a select committee would be appointed to consider the distress of the country, and propose some relief.
Lord Cranleysaid, he should vote for the amendment of the chancellor of the exchequer, though he was of opinion that it would have been more beneficial to the country, that the bill should have been made permanent [Loud cries from the opposition of "Move that it be made permanent."]
The gallery was then cleared for a division. Colonel Beaumont's motion was negatived without a division. The House afterwards divided on the motion of Mr. Buxton to limit the bill to three years. For it, 153; Against it, 328: Majority, 175. The Chancellor of the exchequer's amendment was then carried in the affirmative; after which the House resolved itself into a committee, resumed, and the chairman obtained leave to sit again to day.

List of the Minority.

Abercromby, hon. J.

Calvert, N.

Allen, J. H.

Crickett, R. A.

Althorp, viscount

Churchill, lord C.

Aubrey, sir John

Calvert, C.

Burton, R. C.

Campbell, hon. J.

Benett, John

Carter, John

Beaumont, T. W.

Cavendish, lord G.

Barham, J. E.

Cavendish, Henry

Baring, sir T.

Clifford, capt.

Barnett, James

Clifton, viscount

Bennet, hon. H. G.

Colborne, N. R.

Benyon, Benjamin

Coke, T. W.

Bernal, Ralph

Concannon, Lucius

Birch, Joseph

Crespigny, sir W. De

Brougham, Henry

Crompton, Sam.

Browne, Dom.

Curwen, J. C.

Byng, G.

Davies T. H.

805

Denman, Thos.

Mostyn, sir Thos.

Denison, W. J.

Normanby, visct.

Duncannon, visct.

Newman, R. W.

Dundas, hon. L.

Neville, hon. R.

Dundas, hon. G.

Nugent, lord

Dundas, Thos.

O'Callaghan, J.

Ebrington, visct.

Ord, W.

Ellice, E.

Perceval, Spencer

Euston, earl of

Portman, Ed. B.

Fazakerly, N.

Palmer, col.

Fergusson, sir R. C.

Palmer, C. F.

Foley, Thos.

Pares, Thos.

Folkestone, lord

Parnell, sir H.

Frankland, Thos.

Parnell, Wm.

Gaskell, Benj.

Peirse, Henry

Grant, J. P.

Philips, G.

Graham, Sandford

Philips, G. jun.

Graham, J. R. G.

Phillipps, C. M.

Griffiths, John W.

Powlett, hon. W.

Guise, sir W.

Prittie, hon. F.

Gurney, R. H.

Primrose, hon. F.

Heygate, ald.

Price, Robt.

Heron, sir R.

Rickford, Wm.

Hamilton, lord A.

Ramsbottom John

Harvey, D. W.

Ricardo, David

Hill, lord A.

Ramsden, J. C.

Honywood, W. P.

Ridley, sir M. W.

Hornby, Ed.

Robarts, W. T.

Howard, hon. W.

Robarts, A.

Howorth, H.

Rowley, sir W.

Hughes, W. L.

Russell, lord G. W.

Hume, J.

Russell, R. G.

Hurst, Robt.

Rumbold, C.

Hutchinson, hon. C.

Scarlett, James

Kennedy, T. F.

Scudamore, R. P.

Kinnaird, hon. D.

Sefton, earl of

Lloyd, S. Jones

Smith, John

Longman, Geo.

Smith, hon. R.

Lister, B. L.

Smith W.

Lamb, hon. W.

Spencer, lord R.

Lamb, hon. G.

Stuart, lord J.

Lambton, John G.

Stewart, W.

Latouche, John

Stanley, lord

Latouche, R.

Talbot, R. W.

Lloyd, sir E.

Tavistock, marquis of

Lloyd, J. M.

Taylor, M. A.

Miles, Wm.

Thorp, alderman

Mahon, hon. Step.

Tierney, rt. hon. G.

Marryat, Jos.

Waithman, ald.

Maberly, John

Walpole, hon. G.

Maberly, W. L.

Webbe, Ed.

Macleod, R.

Wharton, John

Macdonald, James

Whitbread, W. H.

Mackintosh, sir J.

Williams, Owen

Madocks, W. A.

Williams, W.

Martin, John

Wilson, sir Robert

Mildmay, P. St. John

Wood, alderman

Milton, visct.

Webster, sir G.

Mouck, sir C.

TELLERS.

Moore, Peter

Buxton, T. F.

Morpeth, visct.

Calcraft John

BLASPHEMOUS LIBEL BILL.
Lord Sidmouthrose to move the second reading of the bill for the more effectual prevention and punishment of blasphemous and seditious libels. He observed, that the title of the bill sufficiently expressed its object, and their lordships, he was confident, could not entertain a doubt of the propriety of checking, as far as possible, libels of the description against which the provisions of the bill were directed. The object of the bill was proposed to be accomplished merely by giving to the court the power of increasing the severity of the punishment which was now applied in cases of conviction for libel on a repetition of the offence. It was not proposed that any additional punishment should attach in the first instance to a conviction for libel, but that a defendant should, on conviction for a second libel, be liable, according to the judgment of the court, to the punishment of banishment or transportation. Having, on a former occasion, fully stated the nature of this bill, and the other measures connected with it, he should not trouble their, lordships with any farther details at present; but should be ready in the course of the debate, to give any explanation which might appear necessary. He would only say, that whatever measures their lordships in their wisdom might think fit to adopt in the present situation of the country, they would all prove ineffectual unless means were found to check the licentiousness of the press. That licentiousness was the great source of the evil with which they had to contend, and if, after adopting the other measures, they did not agree to this, the remedy would be incomplete. The objects of the other measures, important us they were, could not be attained without this; for if it were not adopted, their lord-ships would still have in all its strength, that destructive virus, the pernicious effects of which, if allowed to operate, were certain and irremediable. He concluded by moving, that the bill be now read, a second time.
Lord Erskinesaid, that public necessity, from the state of the country, had been assumed as the justification of this bill as it

707
regarded alike blasphemous and seditious publications; but no such thing was stated in its preamble. It was most important that circumstances which were here after to justify, as a precedent, so extraordinary a change in the law, should be distinctly set forth and recorded; but the preamble was nevertheless quite silent as to any facts which ought to have induced the House to assent to any measure whatsoever upon the subject. It merely asserts that "it is expedient to make more effectual provision for the punishment of blasphemous and seditious libels." But why expedient? Had it been shown that the existing laws were insufficient to suppress them? The bill also applied alike to blasphemy and sedition—objects so very different, that nothing could be more absurd than to associate them, and to legislate on them as one, subjecting them to the same punishments. The controversies of the numerous sects of Christians, however widely differing from the doctrines of the national church, were completely and rightly tolerated. Nothing in such discussions were considered to be blasphemous; but as to direct and indecent attacks on the truths of the Christian religion, on which the whole constitution of the slate was founded, they were severely and justly punishable by the law as it stood, and ought to be most rigorously enforced. The poor man surrounded by his children crying for bread when he had none to give them, would have no other consolation than by looking forward to the hope which Christianity afforded. How cruel, then, how intolerably wicked, to disturb such pious faith, and to disqualify the people for the performance of their duty to the state. He would support, nay go before his majesty's ministers in putting down such pernicious publications: nor was there the smallest difficulty in accomplishing it. But a totally different question presented itself when new laws were demanded. The law officers of the crown had already the amplest means in their hands for the suppression of all injurious publications. This was most clearly proved in the total suppression of another species of libel formerly most destructively prevalent, and equally injurious to morals as blasphemy itself. When he came first to the bar, obscene publications, ruinous to youth of both sexes, were as openly exposed to sale in London as at the Palais Royal in Paris; but a private society, without even the aid of the great re-
708
sources of the Crown, or of any new law like the present, completely succeeded in putting down this odious nuisance. The existing law he himself had found triumphant against them when he represented that body in the court of King's-bench, and they were now never seen, and scarcely ever heard of. How happened it, then, that the attorney-general, with the public purse at his command, could not accomplish what a few private individuals had benevolently undertaken and succeeded in? The reason was manifest: ministers had never properly put the law in action against them. They had contented themselves with prosecuting a few parodies published by Mr. Hone, which, however improper and irreverend, were not aimed at the religion of the country, but at his majesty's ministers and parliament; yet they failed in the prosecution from not addressing the charge and the argument to the jury upon the real, and in his opinion palpable ground of offence. They had no count in the first information charging a seditions libel, and in that which succeeded it they passed it by. In one passage, if I recollect right, it was said, "Oh contemptible Boroughmongering House of Commons, have mercy upon us your would-be constituents.'' Now, without meaning to approve the present construction of the House of Commons, he was confident that the juries of London would not have sanctioned that publication under the ordinary laws, and with their minds not disturbed by the suspension of public liberty. He would have reminded them that the very same House of Commons so constituted and so calumniated, had been the parent of public liberty, now suspended; that the same House of Commons so constituted and so calumniated, had passed the Habeas Corpus act, even the suspension of which was so justly alarming. That the same House of Commons so constituted and so calumniated, had passed the libel bill which gave them the very privilege which they were to exercise as a trust for the great body of the people. Why, then, were new laws to be made because government misdirected their charge? His excellent friend, the late attorney-general, had no other, course to pursue. To raise a cry for the present bills, blasphemy was made the pretext in parliament, and it was to be followed up in the courts. The Age of Reason had then long been in the most extensive circulation, but never was pro-

709
secuted or adverted to, nor any other blasphemy, fill they wore blasphemer themselves in Hone's parody, and then it was too late to take the matter op upon their own account, and this was a faithful history of their defeat. Me knew juries too well to believe that they would not have faithfully protected the institutions of the country however they might think that they were defective—but when public liberty was suspended, public justice was in a manner suspended also. He came now to a second description of libels against which the bill was directed, but without a shadow of justification. Of a blasphemous libel there could be but one feeling and one judgment; but publications might be and often had been charged to be seditious, which were virtuous, public spirited, and useful^—writings which noble lords opposite might well think offensive, but which disinterested, honest, men, ought to approve. Such publications, forsooth, even before final judgment, were to be seized by the crown and suppressed. By this bill, a verdict was a warrant for seizure and suppression, though the judgment might be afterwards annulled. The verdict against the dean of St. Asaph was in August, and under this law could not therefore have been afterwards circulated, but under the penalty of transportation. Yet he had shown the court of King's-bench in November, that taking even the verdict to have been justifiable, it was impossible to sustain any judgment on it, and he had not been ever heard in reply when the judgment was arrested. But even if this bill could nevertheless in that respect be supported, it would do mischief instead of good; the libel could only be seized in the hands of the party prosecuted, or his agent, and where they might be lying as lumber unsold, but the judgment of seizure would produce whilst in the hands of others, an extensive circulation. So much for making unnecessary laws instead of trusting to them that were of old times. There were many cases in which a subject had a perfect right to complain of proceedings of the executive government, and even of parliament itself. He had successfully defended Mr. Stockdale on that very ground, for publishing an attack upon the House of Commons, for circulating their own charge against Mr. Hastings long before the hour of trial, and yet prohibiting all answers to it; and it was a noble act of the jury, never to be forgot-
710
ten, that even before the libel bill, they took upon themselves to acquit him. Had they done otherwise, that virtuous work of Dr. Logan's could not have been sold but under the pains of felony under this pernicious bill before them. The House ought to beware how they inflamed the spirit and temper of the people against the government by new and odious at- tempts to punish them without measure or mercy. The people of England were not to be so subdued. They were accused of cherishing plans of innovation—but if the accusation was just, why was parliament to become an innovator? Instead of new and unexampled severities, it would be wiser to consider before it was too late of temperate and practicable reforms which would satisfy the well-intentioned and moderate, and induce the partisans of wild schemes to relinquish them. Nothing was wanting to put down blasphemy and sedition but the execution of the laws. The novelty of seizure was once well exposed, and he would refer them for example to the conduct of Cromwell when Harrington's Oceana was seized before the liberty of the press was established by law. Harrington, who, republican as he was, continued faithful to the unhappy Charles, and fainted on his scaffold when he was executed, had this work nevertheless seized as a libel upon all government. Harrington sent his daughter to the daughter of the protector to ask her mediation, and seeing her child in her arms, seized it and ran away, and when she was called upon to return it, she complied, saying at the same time, "Your father had seized my father's child—give me back that as I have restored your's." This intercession was successful, Cromwell saying to her, "If my government be made to stand, it has nothing to fear from a paper shot;" and he afterwards consented to accept of a dedication. Depend on it (concluded lord E.) this new system will only increase the evils you complain of. Give satisfaction to the people, and then, instead of passing new laws on the subject of sedition, you might soon dispense with the execution of the old ones. As to blasphemy, crush it at any hour with my assent, so as the laws for the general protection of public freedom are not annulled and violated.
The Earl of Harrowbysaid, he had listened with much attention to the noble and learned lord who had just sat down, because he knew him to possess

711
great practical knowledge on the subject under consideration; but after having carefully attended to all that had fallen from him, he could not see how his statements warranted the conclusion he bad drawn. The noble and learned lord began by making a distinction between blasphemous and seditious libels, the just-ness of which no man would deny; but although every blasphemous and seditious libel, was, as such, subject to punishment by law, their lordships must have been very inattentive to what was passing if they had not observed the great difference between the libels of the present day and those of former times. He readily admitted, that there were, greater shades of distinction in seditious than were to be found in blasphemous libels, which difference would require the consideration of those who executed the laws. It was certainly too much to argue, that a second libel must necessarily be punished by the severest penalty of the law. The answer to such an argument was, that the punishment was by the bill left to the discretion of the court. The noble and learned lord had contended, that the judges had at present the power of increasing the punishment on a second libel; but the subject of complaint was, that by the existing law they had not power in many cases to render the punishment commensurate with the offence. The noble lord had inferred that the law at present must be adequate to check seditious and blasphemous libels, because a society had succeeded in putting down obscene publications. It was contended, that if the attorney-general had been as attentive j as that society, he would have succeeded in crushing sedition and blasphemy. This argument was, however, singularly in- consistent with another part of the noble and learned lord's speech, in which he represented the effect of prosecution to be to encourage libels. At least this was a fair inference from the argument, that the sale would be more extensive. The noble and learned lord had supposed that great injury might arise to the property of a bookseller from a seisure which might afterwards be reversed on an arrest of judgment; and, if he understood him rightly, there was little danger of this injury occurring, since the great sale which the prosecution would cause must, according to the noble and learned lord's supposition, leave very little of the property to be seized. But the fact was, that the no-
712
ble and learned lord had urged no serious objection to the bill. The ground on which the measure was recommended to their lordships' adoption was, that the species and circulation of the libels of the present day differed in description and extent from all former publications. It was impossible for any constitution to escape from the evil effects of the moral taint which such publications diffused. It was argued, that the courts could now punish sufficiently; but the only penalties that at present attached to libel were fine and imprisonment. But, were these sufficient at a time when such extraordinary means were taken to circulate blasphemy and sedition through every corner of the country—when the labourer could not drink his cup of tea or coffee without at the same time partaking of the deleterious poison? Was it, then, too much to say, that a different punishment should be inflicted, when an offence so iniquitous was aggravated by repetition? Did, then, any other punishment but banishment and transportation remain to be applied? Those who gave their support to these laws were the sincere friends of the press They well knew that the liberty of England and the liberty of the press were inseparably connected. It was because they loved the freedom of the press, that they wished to guard against the evils to which its misdirection gave rise. The freedom of discussion which belonged to the constitution of this country, those who recommended these bills were most anxious to preserve. They were not the enemies, but the well-wishers of the press, who endeavoured to correct its abuses. They were desirous of that correction, in order to render the advantages which this country derived from the liberty of the press eternal. But no free government could exist, if those (he knew not what to call them) reptiles, that at present swarmed in every direction, were permitted to gnaw the timbers of the vessel of the state until her preservation became impossible. He was convinced, that their lordships, in spite of all that had been said, would perceive that the present measure, instead of injuring, would strengthen public liberty, and that they would therefore sanction it by their adoption.
The Marquis of Lansdownewished to offer a few observations, with regard to that state of vicious abuse of the liberty

713
of the press, which had been so much dwelt upon by noble lords, and with regard to its proposed cure. If all that was required of their lordships on the present occasion, was a declaration that a more vigorous administration of the existing law was necessary he, for one, would join in sanctioning such a principle. But was that stated in the preamble of the bill? Was it affirmed that the law ought to be more strenuously administered? No: it was stated, that the law itself did not afford sufficient means of suppressing the evil. Upon what foundation did this statement rest? Where was the information to warrant the assertion? How and where had it been shown that the law, though duly enforced, had been inefficient to put down the mischief?— Without any such grounds of proceeding, without any explanation whatever, their lordships were called upon to pass an enactment which would alter the old, long-established law of the land, and to apply the punishment of felony to cases of misdemeanor; of misdemeanor, too, not precise and definite, but so variable that scarcely any two could agree as to the character of any specific charge.— Their lordships would certainly not be led away by any argument from those persons out of doors who seemed to think that any punishment was unfit for any evil, except what might happen to suit their own views. Their lordships would recognize no such reasoning; they felt that it was frequently one of the most important and essential, as it was one of the most delicate, questions which could occupy, a legislative body, to discuss and apportion the peculiar sort of punishment due to each particular offence. But in all such cases, it was fitting that the most ample details should be laid before parliament, in order to induce it to alter or modify the laws. Whereas, their lordships were called upon to pass the present bill without any information of the inefficiency of the existing law; nay, on the contrary, the documents laid on the table proved, that not merely no extraordinary energy, but that not even common steps had been taken to check the shocking licentiousness that had tainted the press; and that it was till December 1818, that any steps had been taken at all. Yet, in the face of these circumstances, their lordships were called upon to stamp a character on the offence of libel such as it had never borne before, and to visit it with
714
penalties unheard of in the history of this country, and only to be paralleled by the worst precedents in Roman legislation. The praise, therefore, hitherto appropriate, which Mr. Justice Blackstone had bestowed on our law in this respect, would no longer apply: for if the bill were passed, no man could say, "that our law of libel corresponds rather with the middle age of Roman jurisprudence, when liberty, learning, and humanity, were in their full vigour, than with the cruel edicts that were established in the dark and tyrannical ages of the ancient decemviri, or the later emperors."—He was certainly prepared to contend, that the present bill did not propose an alteration in the amount, but in the nature of punishment, by substituting for the well-known penalties a penalty of a quality totally different: one too (he alluded to the transportation to Botany-Bay), which was the very reverse of what was fit for the offence. It was even at present an objection justly urged against the punishment of transportation to Botany-Bay, that it was extremely unequal and more detrimental to one individual than another, though those affected by it were for the most part taken from one class of society; but what would be said of it, if it should be applied to offences which might be committed by men in all classes of society; frequently, too, by men of the most exemplary and praiseworthy characters in all other respects, and who, by their talents and their virtues, might be capable of making ample compensation to their country for any injury which they might have inflicted through the press? To apply such a punishment to such persons, would not merely argue an inhuman want of caution in their lordships, but a great want of policy; for he was convinced that the provision to increase the punishment of the libeller, would in fact decrease it, and be his most effectual protection. This was a view well worthy of their lordship's consideration, they should pause and see whether in fact they would not make it more difficult than ever to procure a conviction for a libel. When any complaint was now made of the few prosecutions instituted for libel, their lordships were told of the unwillingness of juries to bring in a very dict of guilty. But could their lordships hope to cure that unwillingness, by substituting for the present punishment one that

715
would be revolting to sense and humanity; one that would disgust every man in the kingdom, and of course every juryman who might be called to pass his judgment in such a case? Their lordships had already seen the difficulty of procuring verdicts in cases of clear and specified crime, and when there could be no hesitation as to the nature of the offence; and juries had not unfrequently (he would not say, that they had acted rightly—all must feel that they had acted naturally), arbitrarily altered by their verdict even the value of a one pound note, in order to ward off what they considered a cruel and exorbitant punishment. If this was the case where the law had defined with absolute certainty the character of the offence, what would be the result where the offence imputed was indefinite and vague? The most eminent judges had been able to give no clearer definition of a seditious libel, than that it comprehended whatever was calculated to bring the government into hatred and contempt. Such a description, it was obvious, would be thought to apply or not to any particular writing, according to the different views and various reasonings of various minds: and where such various judgments might be formed, it was evident that jurymen would exercise their judgments, and modify their sentence by a reference to the consequences which would attach to it. He would ask their lordships to look at what had been the conduct of a great master in legislation on this very subject. He supposed that none of their lordships could feel a greater desire to put down libels than the extraordinary man lately at the Lead of the French government. Indeed, his extreme anxiety on that point was (if he might be allowed so to speak) one of the defects of his understanding; and certainly, it was not possible for any man to use greater energy and perseverance than he did, to repress what he considered as the evil most formidable to his government. Yet the code of France, even under these circumstances, contained no such unjust and cruel provision as that of transportation for any offence relative to the press. It might, indeed, be said, that transportation was not a penalty known to the French law; but deportation was; yet no such punishment, nor any in the least degree analogous, had been applied; and the punishment of fine and imprisonment was considered to be the most efficacious to repress the evil. Yet the British par-
716
liament was called upon to pass a law which was thought too severe even under the late rigid government of France, and which was the reverse of all that was just and humane. And what, he would repeat, would be its practical effect? He was convinced that any man once convicted, would go into court a second time under peculiar advantages, which would greatly tend to weaken the due execution of the law, and thereby the respect due to its administration. That public opinion would set itself against such a severity of punishment in this country, there could be no doubt. Juries would infallibly take into consideration the consequences of their verdicts, mixed up with the consideration of the offence charged, and their verdicts would, as they were now, be guided by the feelings arising out of those united considerations. Take the case, for instance, of an hon. baronet, the member for Westminster, who was now under prosecution on a charge of seditious libel. Suppose that hon. baronet to be found guilty, and to be subsequently charged with a similar offence, could it be believed for a moment, that a jury would by their verdict consign him to Botany Bay, or that they would not give a very different verdict under the same circumstances, with the knowledge, that the finding him guilty might send him to Botany Bay, than they would with the knowledge, that a verdict of guilty could only lead to fine and imprisonment? It was with these feelings, find under these impressions, that he felt it his duty to oppose this bill: let the existing laws be carried into effect, and either they would be found sufficient, or it might be satisfactorily proved that they had failed; but when enactments like the present were brought forward of great additional security, it became their lordships to pause before they agreed to them, and to consider well, whether by these enactments they would not be in effect weakening the cause the enactments were intended to support; whether, if they were attempted to be carried into operation, it would not be much more difficult to obtain a conviction than under the present laws? and thus their whole object be defeated. There was one other part of the bill, respecting which he wished to have some explanation; the term within which actions must be commenced against magistrates, was in this bill fixed at three months, in other bills it had been six months, no reason had been assigned for

717
this alteration; and as it appeared that three months would be scarcely sufficient for the purposes of justice, he was more anxious to have it explained, why in this instance the usual term had been departed from, no cause being assigned for the alteration on the face of the bill?
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that when he considered that the present bill was intended to annex a new and higher quantity of punishment to the offences against which it was directed, he should be disposed to join in the apprehensions expressed by the noble marquis, as to the difficulty of obtaining a verdict in the second case, if the blasphemous and libellous publications alluded to had extended more generally than he believed they did. But the offences, it should be considered, were those of seditious and blasphemous libels—seditious libels intended to overthrow the constitution, and blasphemous libels to subvert the religion of the country. He still trusted that the efforts of the press, industrious as they were, had not succeeded to that extent which was sufficient to alienate the minds of jurymen from the religion in which they were educated, and from that respect for the laws which it was their duty to maintain. Seditious libels were not the offspring of party views, nor connected with party politics: they were attempts to overturn the constitution, by extinguishing those feelings of attachment towards it, which he hoped still prevailed among his majesty's subjects. The noble marquis had objected that the punishment was new. It was upon that very ground that he (lord Ellenborough) supported it; for believing as he did, that the object of the persons concerned in those publications was base lucre, and their chief agent a vile malignity, he could not help thinking that some new quality of punishment was necessary to meet and suppress their efforts. He was further confirmed in this opinion, from observing that the prosecution and conviction of libellers under the existing law produced frequently the effect which the libeller himself had chiefly in view—that of extending the sale of his work, and thereby putting lucre in. his pocket. He was sure when they considered what the author of a blasphemous libel attempted; that he attempted, as had been eloquently expressed by a noble lord who had pre-
718
ceded him, to deprive the poor man of his only hope and consolation; when they considered this, he would ask, what greater crime could be committed? What more atrocious offence could an individual be guilty of, than that of endeavouring to destroy the foundation upon which all society existed? The consolations which arose from religion, and particularly to a poor man, were the most grateful; and yet it was among this class that those pernicious libels were most generally circulated. He looked with little less horror upon those who were charged with publishing seditious libels, their object being to shake the affections of the people towards those to whom the preservation of the constitution had been entrusted, and to produce a change in that constitution, which, if it were effected, must prove utterly destructive of their happiness. Notwithstanding all these mischievous efforts, however, he trusted the constitution would still remain the envy of nations. When they considered the alterations which had taken place in the state of society for the last twenty years, he could not but think that some new regulations were absolutely necessary for the purpose of repressing the licentiousness of the press. In these observations he meant particularly to allude to the progressive increase of education. When they gave knowledge they did not give the power of exercising a proper judgment, although they might hope that power would be inculcated. He believed that where the power of reading and writing had been given, without a strong foundation of morality, instead of producing that benefit which every good man had a right to anticipate, and which all had endeavoured to accomplish, it had been enlisted into the cause of blasphemous and seditious libellers, and had thus become an instrument of real mischief. Upon all these grounds he was strongly of opinion, that some additional strength ought to be given to the laws; and he trusted, notwithstanding the apprehensions which had been expressed by the noble marquis, that we should still be the happiest and the most prosperous nations on the face of the globe.
Lord Hollandsaid, that of all the hideous codes which had ever come under his observation, he must confess, he had never witnessed one more obnoxious than that which was then under the considers-

719
tion of the House; and as he considered it part of a system of policy which was about to be entered upon, he certainly thought himself justified on this occasion, as well as upon all other occasions in which these bills were likely to come before them, to take into his view the state of the danger to which it was said the country was exposed, and to advert to the circumstances upon which the noble viscount on the other side of the House, had recommended these measures to their adoption. He wished, however, on the present occasion, to confine himself entirely to the bill under the consideration of the House. In order to do this it was necessary to look to the grounds upon which the bill had been recommended to their lordships. But where were those grounds to be found, unless in the speech of the noble viscount, and in the preamble of the bill itself, except, indeed, in the speech which had just been delivered, and in which only a rational ground of defence had been stated? All that could be collected from the noble viscount, and from the preamble of the bill, was, that it was expedient to make more effectual provision for the punishment of blasphemous and seditious libels. Was that alone enough to justify an alteration in the laws of the country? Was it upon this ground alone that an alteration was recommended, which would have all the effects, all the advantages, which had been explained by the noble lord at the head of his majesty's council? Was their no other reason for at once destroying the liberty of the press? It was, indeed, of a piece with the ordinary description of parliamentary logic. When the minister came to take the money from their purses, he always told them what a value he sat upon their property: when he offered to invade the constitution, and the law, he told them how he loved the laws and the constitution of their country and now, when he came to tell them that he who published, perhaps inadvertently; perhaps without the opportunity of control a seditious or a blasphemous libel was to be transported for life, he told them how he loved the liberty of the press! But let them consider what were the grounds which had been stated by the noble lord for the adoption of this extraordinary measure. The principal ground was the great increase of these blasphemous and seditious libels. In the first place it became their duty to inquire to what that great increase was to be attributed, and
720
whether it was not to be ascribed to the malicious connivance of ministers themselves? Of this he could form no direct judgment; but he was satisfied that these disgusting publications did not add to the state of the country any additional danger. If, however, any danger did result to the religion of the people, from the prevalence of these disgusting plasphemous publications, he asserted that it was wholly to be attributed to the conduct of his majesty's government, and was connected with those evil designs towards the liberty of the country, which had been since the meeting of that House, so clearly developed. He submitted, however, that the people of England were a religious people, and he would be party to no man, whether king, prince, or demagogue, who would allege that they could be made proselytes to infidelity, or that any additional laws were necessary to the maintenance of their faith. If they looked to the history of the country they would find that the people, and not those in high situations alone, had always rested themselves on the foundation of religion; and he verily believed that much more might be done, if a change were to be effected upon the old and approved method of Oliver Cromwell, than by those doctrines of which the noble lord had said so much. But this opinion and observation upon the disposition and temper of the people of England was not only his. They had the opinion of the noble viscount precisely to the same effect. They were told, not above five or six years ago, that there was such a disposition in the people of this country to preach the word of God,— that persons of the lowest situation in life had become teachers of Christianity, and collected immense- congregations—they were told that Christianity was preached not alone by the elevated and the learned, but by individuals of the most humble class; and such was the spirit which then existed, that their floor was covered with petitions from those persons, praying for opportunities to pursue that course of religious worship which they conceived best suited to their spiritual welfare. He would ask, what had since taken place to produce so awful a change in the morals of the people as they had heard described? He recollected, in travelling through the country at that period, that scarce a village came under his notice, in which he did not see some new place of religious worship. These erections he

721
had always seen with pleasure; and knowing the principles upon which they had obtained existence, he could not help listening with regret to the alterations which were stated to have taken place, within a few short years. He did not believe, however, that there was any foundation for this charge; and could not help viewing with horror and indignation, the attempts which were made upon so fallacious an argument to alter the constitution. For these reasons he doubted the first proposition, that it was necessary to recommend the measures which had been proposed to the House. He meant that he doubted the extent of these blasphemous publications; and he also doubted the extent of any danger which had or could result from them. Having expressed these doubts, the next came to another important branch of the question, and that was, how the laws as they existed with reference to this subject had been enforced? It was incumbent on his majesty's ministers before they came to require an alteration of the laws, to prove in a satisfactory manner that those laws were inadequate to the purposes for which they were formed They should prove not only the existence of the evil, but they were bound also to prove, that that evil had not arisen from misconduct of their own, and that they had not the means in their hands of putting it down. He knew not how this would be answered. If blasphemous publications had been extensively and numerously circulated, where were the prosecutions? or what course had been taken to suppress them? It had been said that juries would not do their duty in cases of blasphemous publications. It was indeed a strange perversion of human intellect, that a person, at the moment he was recommending additional restraints upon the crime of libel, should himself be pronouncing the grossest of libels upon one of the most sacred institutions of the country! It was not less strange to hear it urged that juries who would not convict, as the punishment at present stood, would be more likely to convict if that punishment was increased. But let their lordships come to the bill itself. To what did it refer? They were told by the noble lord who spoke last that he approved of the bill, because it extended the punishment with regard to seditious and blasphemous libels. This, certainly, was a clear and substantial around for Approval; but did the bill
722
itself make any such distinction? Did it not—and it was on that ground that he thought it mainly objectionable—extend the punishment of transportation to crimes which were indefinite in their nature, and which were open to different constructions in the different courts of justice in this country? In this bill, too, there existed an anomaly, directly contrary to the principles of crime and punishment—he alluded to that of making the master criminally responsible for the act of his servant. It had been held in crimes of this character, not merely that it was sufficient to give prima facie evidence of the crime of the master, but it had been explained on the highest authority, and had several times been acted upon, but he hoped would be acted upon no longer, that he should not be allowed to enter into any explanation or exculpation of his conduct whatever, although he might know nothing of the writing of the libel or of the publishing of the libel; and although at the moment the publication took place, he might have been actually serving his majesty in putting down a riot. He was sure it could not be the intention of any man, and more especially so candid and ingenuous a person as the noble lord who spoke last, that a person so situated should be subject for the second offence of which he was so found guilty to the punishment of transportation for seven years. But then it was said that this punishment was in the discretion of the court! This was indeed a monstrous proposition, and one to which he would never willingly accede. He would never consent to have the constitution and the liberties of the country placed at the discretion of any man, however elevated or however virtuous. He wished also to state other objections, which he thought equally conclusive. The bill increased the punishment of a crime which he already described to be indefinite. This was a solecism in law, because according to the practice of the courts, there was no malus animus. It was also to be remarked, that it destroyed all the right of evidence on the part of the accused. Another point deserving particular attention was that which applied to the evidence to be received as indicative of the first conviction. By this bill it was not the record, or even the copy of the record, that was brought forward; out it was enacted that it should be sufficient for the clerk of the peace to write a certificate of the sub-

723
stance and effect of the record. Substance and effect of the record! Why, he would ask, was this provision so made; why not in these as well as in other cases have the record itself? It might be said, that it was too expensive; but no expense could be too great where the clue administration of justice was at stake. He also found in this measure a new term in legislation— he meant the word "banished." He did not know, nor had he ever heard of banishment as any part of the laws of this country. Why it had been introduced on the present occasion he was at a loss to imagine.—He now called upon the House to look at the practical effect of this measure arising out of the difficulty of the definition of a libel. There was scarcely a man in the two Houses of parliament for the last 150 years who might not have been in a situation to be tried under this act. Let them look, too, to the effect which was likely to accrue to all public men, whether literary or otherwise. In speaking of men who had been considered as men of great talent and high station in this country, let them take in my lord Somers, during the years from 1679 to 1683, a time of great oppression in the courts of justice, and when the judges were extremely subservient to the administration in power. During that time, what would have been the effect of such a measure as this? Would not many passages of his speeches, dictated by integrity and' sound worth, have been pronounced libels, and punished accordingly? From the time of lord Somers down to that of Mr. Burke, taking the acts of their public life might not many men have written or spoke some opinion which would come within the definition of libel? And when they considered the fluctuation of parties, to what consequences might not those persons be exposed? Let the House consider the situation in which men would be placed who were altogether innocent; or who, if guilty, could only be accused of a venial offence. Let them consider too, that these persons were to exposed to the punishment inflicted upon criminals of the lowest cast. Let them see also what would be the effect upon literary men, both with respect to seditious and blasphemous publications. What would have become of Milton? What would have become of Dryden, if those against whom his pen had been so effectively wielded, had come into power? Would they not have punished him for
724
those libels, in defiance of his talent? What, too would have become of Pope and Addison, and above all, of sir Richard Steele, the author of the Christian Hero— the eloquent advocate of Christianity. Could he find Security; would not Christianity itself be deprived of its warmest friend, if such a man were sent to Botany-bay? Look to the effect of this law upon men who had, in the change of parties, lost the protection of power. Would they not, amidst the animosities of political hostility, be exposed to the most dreadful consequences? Would not, in fact, such a measure be made the instrument of vengeance, instead of power?—But he considered this bill not merely in the circumstances which he had described-there were other points of view equally important. There was another class of persons equally exposed to punishment, not merely the writer, the man of ability and the man of education, but the poor vender of newspapers, who awoke them in the morning with the sound of his horn, and was alike indifferent to what he sold, whether the loyal address of a university, or the contemptible discussions of a radical meeting. Knowing nothing of the contents or the publication, and perhaps incapable of judging of those contents if he did know them, he, too, was subject to the consequences of this bill; at least to the discretion of his majesty's judges. And he here repeated that, however high he held the character of the judges of this kingdom, and there was no period at which they deserved more praise, yet he never would place in their discretion the degree of punishment which such an offender was to receive. He now came to another consideration, and that was, how-far the proposed increase of punishment was likely to operate upon the crimes which it was meant to suppress? He would suppose sir Samuel Shepherd addressing the jury in the prosecution of Mr. Hone, and by-the-by he could not help remarking, that the selection of the libel for which that individual was tried was rather unfortunate; he said he would suppose sir Samuel addressing the jury, and after he had closed his case he were to say, "I have now said all I think necessary on this libel, I have proved that it has been printed and published by the prisoner at the bar, and now I beg leave to observe, that if you bring him in guilty, if ever he does any thing of the same sort again, he will be liable to be transported

725
for seven years." Did the House think that this argument would have the effect of convincing the jury that they ought to return a verdict of guilty, instead of not guilty? If there was any force in the reasoning of the noble lord, they must suppose that this monstrous and incoherent proposition was tenable, namely, that an increase of punishment would render the conviction of crime more likely than it was before. It had often been urged in that House, that those who inflicted punishment were more likely to suffer than those by whom it was received; and if it was true, in general, that severity of punishment operated more powerfully on the humane mind, than punishment of a lenient character, was it likely that the punishment of transportation was better calculated to ensure conviction in cases of libel, than if the law remained as it was? The only argument like reason which he had heard, was from the noble lord near him (Ellenborough): he alluded to the observation, "that the present punishment was insufficient." He would not say whether this proposition met his views or not; but he considered that persons willing to endure imprisonment for the sake of gain, would not be induced from the fear of transportation to desist from their criminal practices. On the contrary he thought they would endeavour to increase those gains, in order that on being sent to Botany-bay they might be enabled to enjoy the fruits of their nefarious practices; and, therefore, the new mode of punishment, in his opinion, would not diminish the disposition to offend. [Here a noble lord on the ministerial bench was observed to smile.] The noble lord smiled—and he could trace the source of his smile—he meant to insinuate that he could not take the argument both ways; but he contended that he could, and submitted that both arguments formed a still stronger objection to this bill. His argument went to prove, that during quiet times this bill was not sufficient to suppress the crime to which it was applicable; and that in times of deep agitation it was likely to furnish a weapon of all-powerful persecution, and to turn the sword of justice into the dagger of the assassin. During peaceable times the bill would have no effect at all; while in turbulent times, it might be converted into an instrument for the persecution of innocent persons. These were his reasons for opposing this bill; but he objected to it still
726
more, because he considered it one of those long catalogue of measures which had been introduced to the House for the purpose of invading and destroying the constitution of the country. The effects of these measures collectively, he would on some future occasion submit to their lordships: at present he should content himself with stating, that he considered that the reasons which had been assigned for altering the law of the land were insufficient. Persons guilty of a smaller crime were to be subject to the dreadful punishment of persons guilty of a greater. A new punishment, in fact, was enacted in the laws of England; and this, too, at a time when ministers themselves said, that malicious and designing men went about the country representing to the people, that they could no longer place confidence in the justice of parliament. Whether at such, a season it was wise to introduce such a measure, common sense would best point out. He considered the measure altogether objectionable, and entreated the House not to give it their sanction. He hoped, when he saw the bill go into a committee, that their lord ships would strike out those parts to which he had particularly alluded, and that they would save that House from the reflections which their adoption of such a bill would naturally produce.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that he conceived the measures upon which his noble friend who had just sat down had commented with so much severity, essentially necessary to the preservation of the free constitution of this country; and after the manner in which that noble lord had thought proper to speak of them, it was impossible for him to remain silent. The noble lord had spoken that night in a manner calculated to disgrace the judges of this country. But he would ask the, noble lord if he was acquainted with the whole law of libel? At this very moment the punishment of libellers was at the discretion of the judges, and it was at their option to fine, to imprison, or both. There had been, however, a vast change in the Jaw on this subject within a few years past. When he had the honour of holding the office of attorney general, he was effectually opposed in his prosecutions by the noble and learned lord who had addressed them early that night (lord Erskine)—an opposition which he could not help thinking added weight in the cases in which he was himself subsequently

727
engaged. Was it then thought of calling in question the discretion of the judges which was now so much repudiated? What then appeared to be the perfection of the constitution was, that the punishment was in the discretion of the judges, not so, according to the doctrines which had now been promulgated. But to the question as the law stood. If a man, between the time of his prosecution and his judgment, thought proper, day by day, and hour by hour, to repeat his offence, by means of his servant, his wife, or some authorized person, there was nothing to prevent him. Until a great lawyer in another place and a great reformer of laws (Mr. M. A. Taylor) had thought proper to take away the punishment of the pillory, there was some check to this species of pertinacity; but now the court could only imprison and fine, and often the fine was imposed where it could not be paid. The learned lord then alluded to the repetition of the publication of the infamous blasphemies from "The Temple of Reason,'' after the conviction of Carlile. It was true, he said, that each of these publications might form a subject for a distinct prosecution; but if they extended to the number of 500, or 1,000, or 1,500, was it possible for the duration of human life to afford a sufficient space for a punishment equal to the incalculable mischief which their circulation would effect? His lordship then commented upon the pernicious consequences which had resulted to society from the publication of seditious and blasphemous libels, which were dispersed throughout the country in waggon loads, at the expense of those who felt an interest in their dissemination. The act now before the House would have the effect at once of preventing this evil; for the man who sold, who gave, who lent, or who distributed in any way, one of these libels, would be guilty of a misdemeanor. He should be extremely glad to know how, by any other means, this object could be effected. The law as it existed gave no power of this description, and therefore that House was called upon to remedy the evil; and the bill before their lordships he considered in all respects conducive to that important end. He did not think because the law was made stronger, that juries would be the less inclined to do their duty; on the contrary, he had a firm persuasion that they would do their duty, as became honest and conscientious members of society. He did not mean to say
728
that there were not particular cases in which juries might miscarry. No: one of the greatest beauties of the English constitution was, that all persons might miscarry in performing their duties; or in other words, that a great latitude was allowed them; that no power was employed to compel them to act in a particular manner. He found all the juries with whom he had had to deal anxious to do their duty. He stated this with great truth, and also with great seriousness, for this reason—because it could not long be stated with truth, if they allowed blasphemous publications to be promulgated until they produced an evil effect on the minds of jurymen. As long as their minds were influenced by the religion of the country, by the principles of that religion which their lordships professed, so long would they act conscientiously. There might be miscarriages; but when the law was explained to them, it was their bounden duty to put it in force, and he was quite sure that there would be no disinclination on their part to do so. But, suppose there was a change that they would not act correctly; was he, therefore, if he thought the constitution in danger, if he thought the law, in its present situation, was unable to support and sustain the constitution, for the benefit of juries themselves, as well as of all, the King's subjects; was he therefore, he asked, to abstain from the performance of his duty, and to declare, that he would not be a party to those legislative provisions, in the passing of which, he hoped to have their lordships concurrence? Not with standing all he had heard of the general disinclination of juries to administer the law, he was not one of those who believed that such a disinclination existed. In cases of a criminal nature, to which it was his painful duty to attend, he saw no ground to excite a suspicion that such a disinclination prevailed. They were told that there were several clauses in this bill which were highly objectionable. It would be proper to debate those clauses when they came regularly under consideration; but, as he took it, the question they had to dispose of this night was, whether they were not satisfied, not of the expediency of passing this law, but of the necessity of suppressing seditious and blasphemous libels; and that, therefore, they should enact some measure? What they were to enact was another questions. If their lordships though the existing

729
laws were sufficient for the suppression of such publications, let them say so: but if they did not, then he conjured them, by the gratitude they owed for the blessings they themselves enjoyed, as subjects of this free country, to exert their best powers to hand them down unimpaired to their posterity, if they conceived they could be preserved by wise and vigorous measures. When attempts were made to undermine religion, morals, law, property, in short every thing held most dear, he trusted they would not withhold their concurrence from this bill, which was intended to support them. The great question was, could they, or could they not, take upon themselves to say, that the present state of the law was equal to meet and to correct those evils? He thought it was not, and on that ground he should vote for the measure. His learned friend had stated to the House how he would have carried on the prosecution against Mr. Hone; how he would have addressed the jury; and how great would have been the probability of his succeeding. He was well acquainted with his learned friend's fascinating manner of addressing a jury; but, after being informed by his learned friend of the course he would have taken, he doubted much whether he would' have succeeded. His learned friend cried Heat, hear." He also would cry "Hear, hear." while he stated, that, in his opinion, sir Samuel Shepherd took a correct course. What he did in that case was, to ask a jury of the country, whether a parody, libelling a part of the religion of the country, ought not to be punished? He did not condescend to call on them to look at it as a libel on the various person's therein named. With respect to the law of libel, it was introduced after many gross offences had been committed; it was part of the law of the land, and he hoped it would never be destroyed. This he would venture to say—that it would be wisely, used, if exercised to support the constitution of the country; but it would be greatly abused if exercised to destroy that constitution. In this case he was confident it would not be so made use of; and he had no doubt in his mind but that the juries of the country would fearlessly carry into effect the law of the country.
Earl Greysaid, he would not stop to inquire whether the prosecution, which he thought had been most injudiciously directed against Mr. Hone, might or might not have been better conducted.
730
At the same time the noble and learned lord would allow him to say, that, if it had been carried on by his learned friend near him, to no hands could it have been intrusted with a greater hope of success. Feeling as sincerely as any man in that House the indecency and impropriety of reviling or scoffing at religion, still he was of opinion, that that prosecution was most injudiciously taken up, and that the verdict of the jury was perfectly right; because he was convinced, from the evidence and the arguments adduced (and the jury seemed to be convinced of the same thing), that it was not the wish or intention of the defendant to do that with which he was charged, namely, to defame and hold up to contempt the litany and religion of the country, any more than it was the intention of other persons who had published parodies on Shakspeare or other great poets to degrade or vilify them or their works. The learned lord had a little misapprehended what his noble friend had said on the subject. In stating how this prosecution might have been conducted, his noble friend's argument went, he thought, to show, that there would have been a better chance of succeeding in. convicting the defendant of publishing a seditious than of disseminating a blasphemous libel. This, however, had little to do with the subject then under discussion, on which, as a matter of much greater importance, he should proceed to deliver his sentiments, and endeavour to answer, if he could, some of the observations of the noble and learned lord who had just sat down. He was afraid that he could not do that justice to the question which he wished; but that circumstance was the less to be regretted, because his noble friend near him had left, him little to say in the way of argument. His arguments would, no doubt, be subjected to that sort of taunt which had been thrown out against those advanced by his noble and learned friend behind him. He would be told that they were weak and feeble. His opposition, he admitted, was generally feeble — much too feeble for what the importance of the case required, but feeble only from the defective powers of the person arguing, and not because the individual now delivering his sentiments did not think that this hideous code, as his noble friend had well described it, called not for the most earnest, the most anxious, and the most determined opposition of every man who wished well to

731
the constitution of his country.— Part of the arguments of the noble and learned lord, he confessed, he did not well understand. He argued, first, on the position advanced by his noble friend (lord Holland), a position—which had been unanswerably stated by him—that it was a great and serious evil to be subject to the discretion of any individual. With respect to this position, the noble and learned lord proceeded to show that the judges were at present necessarily vested with a very extensive discretion. But, was the noble and learned lord prepared to state, that such a discretion was not an evil? was it not, on the contrary, the policy; of the law, and the spirit of the constitution of this country, to confine that discretion, where it could not be altogether removed, within the narrowest limits possible? If he could not prove the reverse of this position—and it appeared to him that the noble and learned lord could not dispute its correctness— what then was his argument good for? Would the noble and learned lord tell them, that the judges having at present a discretionary power to punish, in cases of blasphemous or seditious libels, with fine or imprisonment, or both; or that until an hon. and learned friend of his had had the punishment of the pillory repealed (a measure of which he highly approved), the judges, having, at their discretion, the right to inflict fine, imprisonment, or pillory, or all three, on persons guilty of publishing blasphemous or seditious libels—would the noble and learned lord tell them, that these were light and trivial matters, and, therefore, that it was necessary to grant a more extensive discretion, and to subject an individual offending to perpetual banishment from the united kingdom? that he should j for a civil offence suffer transportation, as if he were a common felon? that he should be chained with common felons in the hold of a transport-ship, and in that situation, be sent to a remote quarter of the globe? This was a fearful, appalling discretion to be placed in the hands of any judge—The noble lord who sat near him (lord Ellenborough), and who gave as much promise of ability as he had ever witnessed in a first, or, indeed, in any speech in that House, had observed, that blasphemy and sedition were the greatest crimes that could be committed against society, and called for, what every man of sound principles in the country must admit such offence merited, a just
732
and sufficient punishment. No man could doubt the correctness of this sentiment. But the noble lord spoke as if sedition were so definite and precise a crime, that it could not be mistaken. He now called on the noble lord to define to him that which no act of parliament, no lawyer, no judge, had ever yet defined what was the exact nature of a seditious libel. In his opinion, the great evil of this bill was, that, for a crime the most indefinite that was known to the law of England, a discretion was given to the judges of inflicting a punishment which was heretofore only attached to offences of a felonious character. That, it should be observed, which might at one time, be considered seditious, at another period might be looked on as a laudable act; and, therefore, in legislating with reference to the offence, they could not guard, with too many securities, against the possibility of the law being made an instrument of oppression. A seditious libel, in the common acceptation of the word, was, as the noble lord had stated, a publication which tended to disturb the constitution of the country. Now, how many publications would bear that construction, in the minds of some persons, which would not be viewed in the same light by others? That which, at one time might be considered a laudable and just endeavour to stimulate the people to uphold the rights which they claimed under the constitution, by a vigorous defence of those rights from encroachment, might, at another, be stigmatised as a seditious attempt to disturb the legitimate course of the powers of government. Those publications would operate, and would be viewed, with reference to places, to times, and to circumstances. It was not uncommon to confound the interests of the constitution and the government of the country, with the interests of an administration; and in some parts of the country, remarkable for the warmth of their zeal, libels against his majesty's ministers might be considered an attempt to disturb the frame of government. In that case, a person twice convicted of such libels, would be subjected to this horrible punishment—transportation, perhaps for life, perhaps for a shorter term. This was a great, a serious evil, and ought not to be incurred, without the most decided proof of its absolute necessity. The country, it was said, was inundated with blasphemous and seditious libels. He could

733
draw a very great distinction between the two offences. Blasphemous libels he looked upon as considerably more mischievous than those of a seditious character; but he did not think the danger to be apprehended from either was so great as had been represented. Let no person imagine that he wished to defend the circulation of such libels. He had no such object. In saying this, he meant to make no strong profession on the subject. He was merely desirous of claiming that degree of credit which every man's character and conduct in life entitled him to. Disapproving, as he did, of those publications—thinking, as he undoubtedly did, that they deserved punishment—still he was not one of those who believed, notwithstanding all the pains taken to circulate them, that they really were circulated to the extent that had been asserted. He did not think they had spread that foul taint over the morals of the country which the lord president of the council had ascribed to them. He believed, with his noble friend (lord Holland), that the people of England were a moral people, and that those who wished to obtain their confidence and favour by the dissemination of blasphemous libels would find themselves miserably deceived. He believed that, if any man entertained the desperate idea of proceeding in the object of a criminal ambition, he would effect his purpose sooner by exhibiting a fanatic and over-religious zeal, than by acting as an atheist and an unbeliever. Had their lordships no evidence on the subject? Let them examine the conduct of those persons whose designs were the most dreaded, and who stood most decidedly opposed to the government of this country. What was their conduct? What did their lordships see? Were those persons employed in actively defending those obnoxious publications? On the contrary, had they not, at public meetings, within these three days, disclaimed any connexion with those irreligious principles? Did they not feel it necessary to justify themselves, by disclaiming not only any participation in the sentiments of Paine (the recent disgusting proceedings respecting the remains of whom he would not even mention), but any knowledge of them, as they had not even read his work? If there were publications against the constitution and the government, the question was, whether the law now in being was not sufficiently strong to meet them, unless there was something in the
734
conduct of government itself that weakened the effect of that law. He had listened with great attention to what the noble and learned lord had said on this part of the subject; He was a great authority in the law—possessing all its learning, most conversant in its practice, and capable, if ever man was, of informing and instructing others in its subtilties. And what did the noble and learned lord say? He told their lordships that he was quite confident in the correct and upright conduct of juries. Now, who believed that they had not done, and would not do, their duty? He went on to observe, that as the law now stood, every publication of a libel might be made the ground of a prosecution; and the punishment, by imprisonment on each conviction, pushed to such an extent, as to exceed the duration of any man's life-. Was not that power sufficient, if the law were prudently and vigorously administered, to put down the evil? A noble lord had observed, that the desire of amassing vile lucre was the great cause of those publications; Perhaps, the baser the motive in such; cases, the more worthy of punishment was the offender. But, if vile lucre was-the object of those who published blasphemous and seditious libels, could they be more severely punished than by mulcting them of the sum they had amassed? But the noble and learned lord, although he admitted that imprisonment might' be visited on persons convicted, to an extent beyond the duration of human life, declared that the law was insufficient. Had it, he demanded, been found insufficient? Had libels of this nature never been published before? Had prosecutions of this nature never occurred at any former period? Had no man, prior to this time, ever published libels, in which a wish to change the constitution was apparent? From the period of the Revolution downwards, when more zeal and more ability were manifested in the mode of conducting the press than perhaps it could boast at present, when the government was not firmly established, when those extraordinary aids which were now called for might have been demanded with a greater show of reason, then their ancestors relied on the existing laws, and, with their assistance, preserved that free constitution which the noble and learned lord had so highly praised—praises which he did not hear with pleasure, because they were too certain precursors of the inflic-

735
tion of some wound on that constitution, the blessings of which were described in such warm language. With respect to Carlile, how long had he been allowed at his "Temple of Reason" to disseminate the poison of which the noble and learned lord had spoken? Why, he had been allowed to do so for years. But when a prosecution, properly conducted, was instituted against him, it ended in his. conviction; and such a punishment was. inflicted on him as must effectually ruin the man for ever. In the case of Mr. Hone, a subscription was entered into; and, God forbid that those persons who subscribed should be considered the less religious on that account! They subscribed, because they thought, as he did that Mr. Hope was the subject of an unjust prosecution, The case was not the same with respect to Carlile. He could not procure bail before judgment was pronounced on him; and ever since he had been found guilty he remained in prison. A heavy fine had also been imposed on him; and if he could not raise it, he would remain in prison for life. Besides, he was bound over to keep the peace, in very heavy penalties. It was highly probable that he would not be able to procure, the necessary securities, and until they, were forth coming, he must continue a prisoner. Was that alight power that could award such a sentenced were punishments of this nature light and trivial? He would maintain, that if the law. was duly administered, it, would render completely unnecessary such an enactment as that which was now before, their lordships. Let the House suppose an individual, whose anxious wish was to perform his duty to his country, and to enlighten his fellow subjects, but who, in doing so, excited a strong feeling against the measures of government—would it be a light matter to such a man, or could any person imagine that he could exercise the right which the British constitution gave him, of canvassing great public measures, if, on a second conviction for an undefined crime, it was in the discretion of a judge to cast him amongst felons in the hold of a transportship, and send him for seven years to Botany Bay? Those who argued in favour of this severe measure admitted that the liberty of the press was the main stay and support of the constitution; and yet, in their horror of its licentiousness, they were ready to destroy it altogether. At the commencement of the last century,
736
under the government of king William, this country was exposed to infinitely greater danger than any which now threatened it. Was it not known, at that time, that a most active party was willing to support the claims of the exiled family? Was it not understood, that, assisted by the French, they were preparing for rebellion? Were not plots of assassination against king William constantly spoken of? It the present ministers had then been in power, what would they have said? They would have declared that those treasonous machinations that threatened the life of the monarch demanded new and extraordinary guards. "We must," they would have said, "no longer leave the life of the monarch—exposed to such dangers, nor must we leave the government open to the inroads which threaten it. It is necessary that we should alter the law of treason, and: give greater powers to the crown." Was that the plan of the ministers of that period? No; in that very year, when the assassination of the monarch was agreed on, the act relative to constructive treason was passed—that valuable act which gave additional security to the subject, but which, if ministers proceeded in their present course, acting on those new and extraordinary lights that appeared to have broken in upon them, they would, perhaps, in a short time, be called on to do away. The danger of legislating in this manner was self-evident. He asked of their lordships what was likely to be the consequence of the course in which they were now proceeding? He demanded, whether, for some years back, on every new occasion, when any passing danger seemed to threaten the country, the course had not been to grant new powers to the crown and government, whilst nothing whatever was done for the people—nothing to preserve their privileges—nothing to afford additional securities for the protection of their rights and liberties? Instead of that, some additional power was regularly given to the Crown, to coerce the people, and to keep them down more effectually. What could lead more to the corruption of the law, and the utter subversion of the constitution, than so unjust a line of conduct? This was the course that had been adopted for some time past, and which might be traced in the whole code of measures sanctioned and supported by his majesty's ministers—measures brought forward, not to put down the evil of the day, but to inflame and irritate the peo-

737
ple, and ultimately to destroy those popular rights and privileges which were once the boast of this country.—He maintained, that the measure now proposed would not check or repress the evil; on the other hand, he conceived that it would very much inflame and increase it. It was impossible it could be otherwise. The fact might be demonstrated from what took place in the course of the last summer. They could judge from the papers on their table, whether the inflammation that existed in the north of England, prior to the 16th of August, was not greatly increased after the events of that day. Mr. Spooner, in his letter, stated that the evil had greatly subsided, that the people would not hear those inflammatory speeches which they had previously attended to, and that no apprehension of a rising need be entertained. Lord Fitzwilliam, in his letter, stated that the meetings were very much on the decrease. But it was notorious, that after the 16th of August, the meetings increased exceedingly, and the spirit by which the people were actuated became much worse. The same effect would be produced by those laws which they were unwisely and ineffectually pressing forward, and against which he would most earnestly, most sincerely, and most zealously raise his voice. He felt how strongly the tide of the House set against him; he knew that it was impossible for him to stem it but still he would perform his duty. He would not trouble the House much farther: he knew the bills must pass, in spite of all that he and his friends could do; and when that event had taken place, he felt that in future theirs must be a fruitless and unavailing opposition. He hoped the event would prove, that he had adopted a mistaken view of the subject. He trusted those measures would be found as the noble president of the council had stated they would, the best support of the constitution; and that discontent would be succeeded by returning affection, the zealous approbation, and the willing obedience of the people. This was his sincere desire, for he cherished no wish, public or private, except an anxious wish for the peace and prosperity of his country. But, conscientiously feeling that these measures were of a different character; that they had been unadvisedly brought forward by his majesty's government; and that the evils which they were meant to correct would, in fact, be increased by
738
them, he felt it to be his sacred duty to raise his humble voice in opposition to them.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, that the noble earl who had just sat down had taken a view of this question which, if he could make it good, would cause this, and most of the other measures that had been proposed for their lordships consideration, to fall at once to the ground. The noble earl seemed to think, not only that the apprehensions entertained on that side of the House (indeed, he might say, on both sides of the House, with little exception) were unfounded, but he likewise appeared to consider that the special and particular danger which this bill was intended to provide against, might either be effectually met by the existing law, or might be looked on as an evil of which they need not entertain any serious apprehension. However different the opinions of the noble earl might be with respect to the present situation of the country from those held by the great majority of parliament and of the nation, he could venture to affirm, as far as his observation went, that there was no point on which his (the noble earl's) sentiments were so much at variance with public opinion, as on that which referred to blasphemous publications. He could safely assert, that amongst no rank of society, either the higher, the middle, or that part of the lower class who reflected on the subject— amongst no persons of any religious sect or persuasion, had he found a difference of opinion as to the danger of such publications, and the necessity and propriety of arresting those principles and putting down such works, if it were possible. The noble earl and other noble lords said, that he did not apprehend any danger from the dissemination of those blasphemous publications, because the people of England were a religious and a moral people. He was ready to admit that they were a religious people; but the question was, how long the lower orders would continue so, if those publications were allowed to go on? He and the noble earl saw this whole question through a very different medium; for, when he contemplated the whole subject of libel, under existing circumstances, and compared it with the state of libel at any former period in this country, he felt justified in saying, that such an evil never existed before. He admitted that, in all parts of their history, instances might be found of scandalous

739
libels having been published by individuals. But two or three questions were connected with this subject. They must look not only to the nature of the libel which the libeller wrote, but they must also consider the effect it had, or was likely to have, on those to whom it was addressed. Of late years, circumstances, which tended to raise the country to the height of prosperity, and glory had occurred; but those circumstances, though highly beneficial, had also brought certain evils along with them. A greater extension of liberty than was ever before known in any part of the world, had, grown with the increase of knowledge. Let the House consider what was the state of parliament fifty or sixty years ago. It might not, perhaps, be exactly regular to notice the circumstance then, but perhaps he would be permitted to observe, as it formed a very strong ground of argument, that at the period he alluded to, the doors of parliament were shut against the people, and the public did not know what was passing within, their walls. What was the case now? The public were every day made acquainted with what parliament was doing, and their deliberations were made the subject of open comment—to such a degree,, and to such an extent, as in some measure to influence those deliberations. Let them look to the state of the press at the remote period to which he had referred. He was now speaking practically; and he believed it would be admitted, that the great means of acquiring information and knowledge, amongst the mass of the people, were to be found in periodical publications, which were produced daily, weekly, or monthly. On a former day, when this question was under discussion, he had said, "that, for aught he knew, there might be libels in Gibbons' History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" but that, if there were, no danger was to be apprehended from them." The case was, however, very different with respect to those periodical publications. Let the House compare their Increase at the present day with their number fifty, forty, thirty twenty, or even ten years ago, and they would discover that it was most enormous. When he saw cheap tracts circulated for half-pence and farthings, throughout the country, applying themselves to the worst and most dangerous passions of the people; when he remarked the decidedly licentious conduct of the press, and saw the number of libels which it daily sent
740
forth, he could not help thinking that no fair comparison could be drawn between the state of things now, and what it was thirty or forty years ago. When he looked to this important subject—when he dissected and examined it in all its bearings, he considered the prosecution of libels, at the period he had mentioned, to have been almost unnecessary, for the evil at that time must be considered as nothing when compared with the state of things which at present existed, under the circumstances that he had detailed. But the noble earl seemed to imagine because the people of this country were a religious people, they could never be polluted by such publications. He was not ready to con-cede that point. They had witnessed the French revolution, and had seen the evil effect which irreligious publications had had in that country. But, said the noble earl, no public man, looking for popular favour, would attain his object by the dissemination of blasphemous publications. That might be the case now, but how long would it remain so, if they allowed such an unnatural state of things to continue? It was not on the mere narrow view of liberty or slavery that he considered this question; but this he would say, that if he was asked what was the most likely thing to introduce despotism into England, he would answer, the success of the machinations of those who disseminated these publications." What, he asked, would be their effect? That effect had been well described by the noble lord (the son of a man for whom he had ever entertained the greatest respect) to be, the taking away from all men, dignity and morality in life, and depriving them of hope and consolation in death. Such a system went to brutalize the human mind. Why were the men who made the most conspicuous figure during the reign of terror in the French revolution, worse than, those who appeared in the civil war in this country? Because amongst the latter there was ever a sense of religion; at all events, if they did not cherish it in their hearts, they were obliged to feign a respect for it. That would in any shape, or at any time, be some check on the actions of men. But the French revolution was produced by men who had no religion, and who proudly boasted that they had none— men who blasphemed their God and reviled every thing that was sacred. This was all attributed to the expansion of universal benevolence. But what was the

741
effect of this horrible system? It brutalized the minds of the French nation— it deluged their country in blood—and produced scenes that filled the soul with horror. He, therefore, was not one of those who looked to these preservative measures—for so he would call them,—as calculated to lead to despotism. He would again assert, that, if ever this country arrived at such a melancholy situation, it would be effected by; brutalizing the feelings of the people, by driving from their minds all those principles of morality and religion by which the state was upheld, and the absence of which must produce disorders and tumults that would inevitably end in the ruin of all that was dear to them as men and christians. He therefore thought that the whole question, both with respect to this and the other bills, turned on this point—whether the description of the disorders which prevailed in the country was false. If it was the remedy of those imaginary evils must fall to the ground; but if it was true, then no man could contemplate it without feeling a strong desire for the enactment of measures that might correct so alarming a state of things.—He now came to the question of the principle of the bill before the House, as this was the stage to consider its principle. The bill, then, proceeded on an idea that the law as it at present stood was not sufficient of itself to repress blasphemous and seditious libels, and it therefore enacted more severe penalties. It introduced a new kind of punishment for the offence, by subjecting the offender, on a second conviction, to banishment or transportation at the discretion of the judge. The noble earl had strongly objected to the discretionary power to judges; and he concurred with, him so far as to admit, that when possible law ought to be so precise as to allow no discretion in the court by which it was administered. But in the case of libel this discretion had always existed. His noble and learned friend on the woolsack had shown that the judges always exercised in such cases a discretionary power, and that not long ago that discretion was more extensive than it would be made by the present bill. It had been said by the noble ear], that a seditious libel was an indefinite offence. He agreed that it was, and on that description founded the justification of the discretionary power intrusted to the judges. But the noble earl had mistaken his noble and learned friend on
║
742
the woolsack. His noble and learned friend had not contended for larger discretionary powers in courts of justice; he had only mentioned that formerly, before the abolition of the ignominious punishment of the pillory in cases of misdemeanor, the punishment to which seditious libels were subjected was more revolting than that now proposed. A judge could at that time award fine to any amount, imprisonment to any duration, and, in addition to both, the punishment of the pillory. The latter was abolished by a bill introduced into the other House by an hon. and learned gentleman; and when it was brought to this House, he (lord Liverpool) concurred in its provisions, with an amendment which he proposed, and which was carried, still continuing the punishment of the pillory in cases of convictions for perjury. In that state it passed the House, and became a law. But how stood the case of a man convicted of libel before this bill was passed? He might not only be fined and imprisoned, but, in addition, be put in the pillory, and that not only for a seditious and blasphemous libel, but for any libel, and that, top, for the first offence; yet, when such a Revere law existed, there were no complaints uttered that the liberty of the press was destroyed—that no freedom of publication existed. In his idea, the pillory was a very unappropriate punishment for libel; but was it on this account never inflicted? Yes, it was. He had himself seen a person punished with pillory for a libel. The law therefore awarded a more degrading punishment at that time than was proposed by the present bill, whose severity was so much complained of. The noble earl had adverted to former times, and had said that in those times, even when the country was in the greatest danger of civil commotion, laws were passed, not contracting but extending the liberty of the subject. The noble earl had particularly referred to the reign of William 3rd. Did the noble earl recollect how frequently the Habeas Corpus act was suspended in that reign. He (lord Liverpool) allowed that a very important statute respecting treason had been adopted in that reign by the legislature. He would not enter into any detailed investigation of the circumstances which led to that proceeding. But it was well known that the complicated and intricate occurrences of those days, rendered it very intelligible why the different

743
parties into which the kingdom was divided, were desirous that such a favourable law should pass. The fact was, that every age had its own dangers, and that every age must meet them with its own remedy. Whatever might be the dangers in the time of William, they were very different from those at present existing. At that period, the contest related to a sovereign with a disputed title to the throne; at present, the contest was of a very different character and principle. But he had already stated to their lordships in what he considered the present danger to exist; and he left it to them to determine whether the measure under their consideration was not indispensable to avert it. —In the course of the debate much had been said of the way in which it was probable the bill would operate on juries. He assured the House that he was always disposed to speak with great caution and reserve and respect, of the decisions of juries; at the same time, he could not admit that, of the decisions of the juries, which he was not prepared to admit, of the decisions of their lordships, or of the House of Commons. He could not admit that they were infallible: twelve men, however honest, might possibly be influenced by prejudice or passion; and he could not admit, that if in the fair estimate of an honourable man's mind, he came to a decision different from that of a jury, that he was precluded from saying so. He would not enter into the circumstances of the acquittal which had that night been alluded to: he would not pronounce it to be right or wrong. But this he would say—that, whether right or wrong, it materially aggravated the existing evil. That evil, however, would not have been so great as it proved to be, had it not been followed up by subscriptions, to which, he was sorry to say, some very respectable persons were induced (by motives, which he could not pretend to fathom) to contribute. To him this appeared to be a seriously unwarrantable transaction,—To revert, however, to the subject immediately before their lordships. His opinion was, that if the proposed bill was adopted by the legislature, it would have a great effect—not in preventing people from writing or publishing libels—for a much severer punishment than that which the bill contemplated, would not have that effect—but in making persons feel that a second offence might subject them to a
744
severe punishment, and by rendering them consequently cautious.—When noble lords talked of their apprehension of arbitrary power, they should consider how much of late years the constituted authorities of the country had lost in respect. By some this had been attributed to what was called the corruption of the House of Commons. But could those who said so seriously consider such a cause as adequate to the production of such an effect? Let their lordships look at the bench of justice. All parties united in admiration of the conduct of the judges. From the accession of the present family to the throne, the judges, with perhaps not a single exception, had all proved themselves to be men of honourable and independent minds. So they were universally held to be at present. But did not their lordships observe the anti-judicial spirit that prevailed? Did they not observe, not only in the person brought before the highest tribunals for the most dangerous crimes, but in the audience, a special defiance of the jurisdiction of the country? Was that to be ascribed to the corruption of the House of Commons? Had that its root in the misconduct of ministers? Did it even proceed from compassion to the individual, in whose conduct no circumstance of aggravation was wanting Who could observe that species of defiance of law and authority, and not say, that over that law and that authority it was the duty of parliament to throw a shield? Under all these circumstances, he was persuaded that, although discretion should be avoided if unnecessary, it was in the case of such a serious offence as that in question, but fair, just, equitable and expedient to vest a certain discretion in the courts of justice;—a discretion which there could be no apprehension would be abused; and which might enable those courts, in particular instances, to adopt proceedings eminently conducive to the public good.
The Earl of Carnarvonsaid, that the whole system of measures now proposed to parliament, appeared to him uncalled for and unjustifiable in the present state of their lordships information. The ministers of the Crown, had told the Houses that distress was the cause of the present danger, and that they expected that that distress would be merely temporary; but they were to meet that temporary danger and distress, by permanent restrictions upon liberty. His objection to them was, that the ministers of the Crown did not

745
meet the difficulties of the country with appropriate remedies. When they called for new powers, they ought to have shown that they required them to answer the emergency. If they had dreaded to disclose their information, they might have said so, and called for the temporary confidence of parliament. If they had come down to that House, and stated upon their honour, that they had information which made measures of safety necessary, without being able fully to disclose that information, he would have been the first to grant them those powers; but he would not agree to alter permanently the constitution of the country on such facts and allegations as appeared in the papers on the table. To the present bill, as a permanent measure, he could not give his sanction, and he would move in the committee, that it be restricted to a short period. The law of libel was indefinite; any thing might be considered a seditious libel which included a censure, hot legal; on the character and conduct of the servants of the Crown; and every such censure was not legal, except when uttered in his place by a member of either House. A letter put into the post-office, reflecting upon the conduct of ministers, and given up to the public prosecutor, might be considered a seditious libel; and, on a second conviction for a similar letter, the author would render himself liable to transportation. Was this a punishment suitable to such an offence or such an offender? Did not this law, therefore destroy a great portion of our liberties, and, if rendered permanent, would their lordships not be accused of delivering the constitution impaired to their posterity? Nay, even a speech spoken in parliament, and reported to the world, might be construed into a libel, and the publisher, on conviction for a second offence, might be transported to Botany Bay. Would not this stop all discussion on the conduct of government, and prevent any strictures on the characters or measures of ministers, both in and out of parliament? For several years government had allowed seditious and blasphemous libels to pass with impunity. They had not put in force the existing law against them; and, having been guilty of this remissness, they suddenly called upon parliament to furnish the means of punishing libels with tenfold severity. He must Vote against the present bill, although he was not, in principle, opposed to all the insures that
746
had been introduced, some of which, at least, if enacted for a time, might be very expedient But, affecting, as this measure did, that most valuable privilege, the liberty of the press, it should meet with his decided opposition.
The Earl of Blessingtonsaid, that before minister visited seditious libels with such severity, they should define what seditious libels were. A noble lord had said, that any person who gave an opinion against the conduct of ministers, lent his weight to the disaffected. A peer of parliament, according to this doctrine, in discharging his duty, and fairly stating his, sentiments, might, by the present bill render himself liable to transportation. Until, therefore, he heard that it was not intended to be a permanent measure, it must have his decided opposition; and, until he heard from the noble secretary of state proposition's for conciliating the people as well as coercing them, he must oppose all the measures that had been recommended by government. Anxious as he was to see the Prince Regent enthroned, as he deserved to be, in the. hearts of the subject, he must again and again vote for an inquiry into the state of the country; in the hope, that at last, parliament would show the country, not only that they would protect the just rights of his majesty's peaceable subjects, but that by soothing 'measures (which alone ought in his opinion, to be adopted) they would silence the general expression of discontent.
The Duke of Sussexbegged to be allowed to make a few observations, in consequence of what had fallen from a noble earl on the subject of the education of the lower orders of society. He was quite sure that the noble earl did not mean any personal imputation. But being so much concerned as he was with others, in the superintendence of the education of the poor, he felt himself called upon to defend the system of schools which had been assailed—namely, the Lancasterian system. It was a system founded on the strictest principle of religion and morality. He could vouch for one particular fact, namely, that although children of different sects were admitted into the Lancasterian schools, every Monday morning they were examined to ascertain whether or not they had been to some place of worship or other; and when it was found that that had been neglected three times, the child was dis-

747
missed. There could be no doubt that these institutions led to the increase of knowledge; and that, in fact, knowledge among the lover orders was increasing ten-fold, aye, a hundred-fold, every year. He had already told his majesty's ministers that he agreed to a part of their propositions. As to that under their lord-ships consideration, he protested against it in toto. He would tell them openly, candidly, and manfully, why. On an examination of the papers on the table, he saw that ministers were not ignorant of the state of the country, when parliament was prorogued in July last. If so, be put it to their lordships, whether it was consistent with the public tranquillity to allow them to separate? Referring also, to the various public libels which for so many years had remained unprosecuted, he maintained that ministers had not proved that they had made any one attempt to punish a libeller which had not succeeded. Until he was convinced that they had undertaken all they might have undertaken, he would resist additional powers. If the present grievance was attributable to the neglect of government, in the use of the powers already in their possession, he was the last man who would encourage neglect by granting an increase of power. He had stated his opinion on the present as he had done on other questions, with deference, and he trusted with the courtesy which was due from one nobleman to another.
The bill was then read a second time.

PROTEST AGAINST THE SECOND READING OF THE BLASPHEMOUS LEBEL BILL.
The following Protest was entered on the Journals:
"Dissentient,
"Because we believe, that by a seasonable exertion of the laws, as they at present exist, the Press cannot be abused to any bad purpose, without incurring a suitable punishment.
"Because any extension of the power of punishment now vested in the Courts of Law, with respect to cases of Libel, appears to us, therefore, to be un-necessary.
"Because the offence of publishing a Libel is, more than any other that is known to our law, undefined and uncertain. Publications which at one time may be considered innocent and even laudable, may at another, according to circumstances, and the different views of
748
Public Accusers, of Judges and of Juries, be thought deserving of punishment; and thus the author or publisher of any writing, dictated by the purest intentions, on a matter of public interest, without any example to warn, any definition to instruct, or any authority to guide him, may expose himself to the penalty of being "banished from the United Kingdom, and all other parts of his Majesty's dominions, for such term as the Court, in which such conviction shall take place, shall order; or be transported to such place as shall be appointed by his Majesty for the transportation of offenders, for any term not exceeding seven years."
"Because the fear of being subjected to the punishment of a common felon, thus suspended over the head of any person who may have been once convicted of publishing a libel, to which mere inadvertence may subject him, and against which no degree of caution can afford him complete security, must necessarily deter him from the fearless exercise of the right, which has hitherto been the proud prerogative of Englishmen, of freely discussing public measures, and endeavouring to warn his countrymen against the dangerous encroachments of power. "Because this Bill, therefore, so inconsistent with the policy of our law, and with the practice of our ancestors, appears to us to be a most dangerous invasion of the just freedom of the Press, and to be subversive, in one of their main defences, of the rights, and liberties which were secured to us by progressive struggles through a long succession of ages, and at length asserted, declared, and as we bad fondly hoped, firmly established for ever, by the Revolution of 1688.

(Signed)

GREY.

JERSEY.

AUGUSTUS FREDRSKING.

MINTO.

YARBOROUGH.

ERSKINE.

LANSDOWNE.

THANET.

COWPER.

ALBEMARLE.

LAUDERDALE.

KING.

ROSSLYN.

AUCKLAND.

CLIFTON (DARNLEY).

VASSALL HOLLAND.

SEIZURE OF ARMS BILL.
The bill went through a committee. On the question, that the. report be received,
Earl Greyrose to express his sentiments upon the bill. He objected to it not only as it stood part of an obnoxious system, but as being in itself uncalled for and dangerous. It conferred upon the magistrate a power of breaking open houses by night or by day—a power which was liable to great abuse, and which might be dangerous in the execution of the means employed to carry it into effect, while it would be perfectly inefficient for the" purpose for which it was intended. He objected to it likewise in principle. It was a principle of the law of England, asserted and declared in the Bill of Rights, that every man was entitled to the possession of his arms, not only for defence against the assassin or the midnight robber, but to enforce his constitutional right of resistance to oppression, if deprived of the benefit of the laws. He was anxious to express this constitutional view, as that right had been asserted and recognized at the period of the Revolution, and had been too much lost sight of since. He could not, therefore, surrender it, without the most urgent necessity; and he saw no grounds of necessity established. It had, indeed, been said, that arms had been provided for the purposes of insurrection and rebellion; but the papers on the table, which contained the only information on which He could proceed, stated nothing precise or satisfactory on the subject. Where any thing specific was stated, he found that it related to a few pikes, which had been fabricated at the desire of the persons who gave the information. On such a ground he could not surrender an essential right of Englishmen. But the scanty statements contained in the papers had been attempted to be completed by the accounts that were heard in the House. Arms, to an extraordinary ex-tent, were said to be made and distributed in the part of the country with which he was connected; and a near and dear relative of his, it was added, had been obliged to leave his home from the fear of an armed insurrection, and to retire with his family to Newcastle, as a place of safety. That his relative had left his home he could not deny {whether from a misconceived alarm, would best appear from what he had to state. His relative had since written him a letter in which he said that the alarm was false; that the reports of the state of the country were exaggerated; but that he did
750
not feel himself justified in neglecting to take the step that he had taken from affection to his family, whose wishes he was obliged to consult. That the principles of reform were widely diffused in that country, he could not deny: that the Radical Reformers were numerous, he believed; that their attempts to carry Radical Reform into execution would be zealous, he likewise believed; and that they had divided themselves, as had been represented, into different sections, for the purpose of receiving information and communicating with each other, was also true. The numbers were differently stated; but that they were very numerous, was a fact from which he could not withhold his belief. Admitting all this, however, he was prepared to say that much exaggeration had prevailed on the subject. The House had been told that a meeting took place at Newcastle, which was attended by 30,000 people; but the whole population of the place did not consist of more than 28,000. Allowing for the numbers that came from Shields and other places, he had been informed, that not more than 7,000 or 8,000 attended the meeting, and that they dispersed without the least disturbance. The noble duke (of Northumberland) had spoken much about arms the other day. Now with respect to arms, it ought to be recollected, that great numbers of people in the neighbourhood of Newcastle, possessed arms, without any reference to the purposes of insurrection; that many of them had received them during the war, and had retained them afterwards. But that any arms had been made for present purposes he was enabled to deny. With respect to the number of men prepared for insurrection, it had been said by a noble duke, that 100,000 were ready to rise in arms between the Weir and the Tyne; but the whole population of Northumberland and Durham would not furnish 100,000 adult males. This was a proof of the great exaggerations that had gone abroad. He did not wish to deceive their lordships; he believed that reform was demanded by a great body of the people— not by the poor and the distressed alone, but by the middle classes of society, possessed of competence, disposed to industry, and capable of discussing public measures. He would entreat their lord-ships, therefore, to consider, whether measures similar to the present were likely

751
to operate upon them, and to reconcile them to the want of that reform, of the necessity of which they might consider those measures the best proof. He must pause before he gave his assent to a statement which said, that by being Radical Reformers, or sharing doctrines held by the late duke of Richmond, they necessarily aimed at the subversion of society, and a division of property. He had heard, indeed, that the duke of Northumberland's tenants, whom he assembled at Alnwick for the defence of the county, had, in the wantonness of festivity, talked of the division of his property. He only stated this to show how reports might spread; and if this one was unfounded, it was likely that many others on the opposite side were as unfounded. The bill before the House, he was convinced, would be entirely nugatory and inefficient, while its enforcement must be very vexatious. Its provisions had been many days before the public already; it would still be some days before that House, some days in the other House, and some days might intervene before it received the royal assent. Would: the persons who possessed arms which it would authorize the magistrates to seize, be such idiots as not previously to have disposed of them? With regard to them, therefore, it would be inefficient; with regard to others it would be oppressive and irritating. He would appeal to those who knew Ireland, whether the irritation of that country was, not, at the commencement of the rebellion, more fomented by the search for arms than by any other measure.
The Earl of Strathmorewas unwilling to trespass upon the attention of their lordships, but he felt it necessary to say a few words in answer to the ingenious arguments used by the noble earl who had just sat down. He had often given that noble earl his due tribute of praise and admiration for the great abilities which he had displayed on various occasions, but he had lived long enough to know, that there was no argument like matter of fact. The noble earl had stated that his brother had left his abode through a false alarm, but that he had again returned to it. He could assure their lordships that there was more cause for such a removal at present in that part of the country, than at any previous period. He had that morning received letters from two magistrates of the county of
752
Durham, which contained alarming accounts of the state of the country. Here the noble lord read the letters. The first stated, that in consequence of the enclosed letter from colonel French, the writer felt it his duty to apprise his lordship, as lord lieutenant of the county, that the military force was to be held in readiness to be called out, and that his lordship's cavalry were to form part of that force.'' These letters were signed Abel Askew and J. Collison and dated December 3rd 1819. It was hardly necessary after this, to say that simultaneous meetings were to be apprehended, and that the town was not in danger. Another letter was read by the noble lord, in which the magistrates were directed to be in readiness, and to keep the yeomanry ready to act on the shortest notice. If this was not sufficient to open the eyes of their lordships to the danger which threatened the country, he knew not what was. The noble earl had stated, that the object of these people was only a reform of parliament; now he, from the best information he could receive, was convinced that their object was nothing short of open rebellion. He had reason to suppose that a great portion of the inhabitants of that and other districts were ripe for the purpose. He was a good deal interested in that part of the country, and had the earliest and best information of what was passing. In one letter he was informed, that the principal object of the reformers-was plunder—that out of 15,000 persons, 14,500 might be said to have no other object than plunder and the division of property. The noble lord mentioned the names of Mackenzie and Marshal, as two persons who were venders of seditious-publications. He was aware that in the districts alluded to, as well as in several others, arms were procured to an alarming extent, not, as was stated, for the purpose of poaching, but for the furtherance of far more dangerous objects. He had this information from a source, which if the noble earl knew, he could not doubt; but he could not mention that source, as, by doing so, he should expose an innocent individual to assassination. He hoped that no time would be lost in passing this bill through the House, as upon it, and the other measures to be introduced, depended the safety of the country. An insurrection was to be dreaded, and if it took place, God knew what would be the consequence! With

753
respect to what had been said of the state of the country between Newcastle and Carlisle, he could give no opinion, as he was not so well acquainted with that part of the country. No doubt the noble duke who had made that statement would explain it. He trusted their lordships would believe, that in the part which he took on this occasion, he was actuated by no other motives than a sincere feeling for the state of the country. His sole wish was to co-operate with those who exerted themselves for the safety of the state. God forbid that, to use the words of the poet, it should be said, "Si mens non leva fuissit Anglia nunc stares."
The Duke of Northumberlandhad been informed by those who were convinced of the fact, that there were 100,000 men ready to act between New-castle and Carlisle, and that arms to a considerable extent had been purchased by different individuals.
Earl Greysaid, in explanation, that there was no man who had a greater, objection to the radicals than he had, but yet he must have regular proof before, he could believe that there was any dangerous plan afloat to subvert the constitution of the country.
The Earl of Darnleysaid, that during the discussion of the bill, he had more than once expressed his dissent from the clause which authorised the searching for arms "by night.'' He had admitted, that in the present state of the country, some measures of security were necessary, but he must still protest against the clause, and he alluded was so well understood by their lordships, that when the clause to which he alluded was read, his amendment, that it should be expunged would have been discussed. It was with surprise he now heard all the proposed alterations gone through but still the clause to which he alluded remained part of the bill. He would not undertake to say, that the, clause had been read distinctly, but it certainly was not read with an audible voice; At least he did not hear it. He should therefore now press his previously intended amendment, that the clause authorising search for arms by night be omitted.
Lord Sidmouthsaid, that the noble lord was mistaken as to the manner in which the bill had been read. It had been done in an audible voice, and seemed to have been perfectly understood by their lord-
754
ships. The amendment of the noble lord could not be pressed now, the bill having been already perfected in its present stage. The noble lord, however, might move his amendment on the third reading to-morrow.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that as far as he could judge, the clause to which the noble lord alluded, had been read in an audible voice. His lordship, however, had still the opportunity left him that was suggested by the noble secretary of state, of moving his amendment upon another occasion.
The report was then agreed to.

PROTEST AGAINST THE SEIZURE OF ARMS BILL.
The following Protest against the bill was entered on the Journals:
"Dissentient,
"Because the right of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, is secured to British subjects by the ancient laws of these realms, is declared to be so by the Bill of Rights, and is, in the words of Mr. Justice Blackstone, "a public allowance of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.
"Because no sufficient evidence has been laid before the House to prove 'that arms and weapons of various sorts have in various parts of the kingdom been 'collected, and are kept for purposes dangerous to the public peace." We doubt the fect, and we distrust the remedy. If arms have really been procured for such illegal purposes, the person sengaged in these criminal designs, will have had ample notice, before this bill can pass, to remove them to places of concealment. Whilst this power, therefore, is likely to be in a great degree inefficient with respect to its professed object, it is liable to be most imperiously and vexatiously used, in cases where arms may have been provided and kept for the legitimate purposes of selfdefence.
"Because in former periods of much greater danger to the crown and constitution of these realms, when conspiracies by the adherents of the house of Stuart were known to be directed against both; when preparations were making for rebellion with the assistance of France; when men of the highest rank, station, and influence in both kingdoms were deeply engaged in

755
these designs; nay, during two formidable rebellions in 1715 and 1745, no such power was granted to the crown; vet the new line of succession was defended, and our free constitution successfully maintained against all these dangers. The principles of the Revolution had been too firmly imprinted in the hearts and minds of our ancestors, to allow them, on the' spur of any emergency, however alarming, to hazard the existence of a right which they had so recently asserted.
"Because this law is, in its very nature, peculiarly liable to abuse. Interest, credulity, malevolence, revenge, party violence, and indiscreet zeal, may, equally with a sense of duty, contribute. to call it into action; and the powers given for its execution, of breaking, either by day or night, into any house or place where information may have been received that arms are kept for illegal purposes, must unavoidably expose the persons and property of his majesty's subjects to injury and violence, which cannot be sufficiently guarded against by the provisions made in the bill for that purpose. This is not a mere apprehension. Experience proves that such effects may be expected from it. In Ireland, it is well known, nothing more contributed to irritate the people, and to provoke acts of private resentment and revenge, than the abuses which took place, and particularly the insults which were offered to women, in the exercise of a similar power.
"Because we further object to the enactments of this law, as part of a system which, in a season of unexampled distress and misery, rejecting every pro-position for conciliation or concession, rests on force alone for the suppression of the prevailing discontents, and is calculated to give additional weight to an opinion, already too generally entertained, that parliament is more ready to presume against the people, and to enact laws for their restraint, than to attend to their just complaints, and to afford them that protection which they have a right to claim against every species of injustice and oppression.

(Signed)

GREY.

WENTWORTH

THANET.

FITZWILLIAM.

ERSKINE.

YARBOROUGH.

ALBEMARLE.

AUGUSTUS FREDERICK.

KING.

YASSALL HOLLAND.

COWPER.

ROSLYN.