had to put a question to the chancellor of the exchequer, which, however ridiculous it might seem, was of great importance to the labouring population of Lancashire. It was reported amongst them that the government was about to seize the funds of the Friendly societies and Savings banks, and apply them to the payment of the national debt [a laugh]. This report had been caught up by persons little conversant in political matters, and had actually caused the breaking up of friendly societies, to the great loss of those who had claims on them. He was aware that it was impossible for the government to touch any of these funds, and that the report must have been circulated by designing persons. What, perhaps, enabled them to give currency to the report was, that in the last act for the amendment of the acts relating to Friendly societies, the money of these societies was directed to be lodged in the hands of the commissioners for the reduction of the national debt. He wished to hear a declaration on the subject from the authority which in that House was alone competent to give it.

said, that even after the experience of the extent to which malignity and absurdity could go in the propagation of reports injurious to the administration, he had not been prepared for such a rumour as that alluded to by the hon. gentleman. It was utterly groundless; there was not the smallest foundation for it, either in fact or possibility. Under the authority of parliament, the money belonging to Friendly societies and Savings banks was kept entirely apart from the public money; and even if the Treasury were base enough, they had not the power to misappropriate those funds.

observed, that this was not the only time when such reports had been circulated. When the education committee was sitting, it was asserted that its intention was to seize all charitable funds, and to turn the two universities into charity schools. He was afraid that the declaration of the chancellor of the exchequer would not be effectual, as he had had an example of the inefficacy of facts or reason on such reports, in the case he had alluded to.

hoped his declaration would be effectual, when it was known that not a single contributor to the Friendly societies or Savings banks had ever been deprived of his money by government.

said, that it might be also said, in the way of consolation, to the people in Lancashire, that they need be under no alarm as to the paying off the national debt with the money of Savings banks, for that no money would be applied to that purpose at all. Till the last year there had been a sinking fund of fifteen millions; now there was only nominally a sinking fund of five milllions; and that would probably fall so much short by the deficiency of the revenue, that nothing at all would be applied to that purpose.

said, he anticipated no probability of any material deviation from the plan laid down by parliament in the last session.

begged to remind an hon. gentleman opposite of a statement which he had made on a former evening respecting a clergyman who had preached a sermon at an Orange procession, calculated rather to inflame than to allay the passions of his hearers. He was not at that time acquainted with the circumstances which the hon. gentleman stated, nor did he know the name of the clergyman; but he had since received a letter from him, denying many of the circumstances mentioned, and declaring that the sermon which he had been requested to preach on that occasion, and which he had consented to preach as any other clergyman would have done in ordinary civility, was by no means of the tendency which had been represented. He mentioned the text from which he preached, and he (Mr. Canning) thought it a sort of guarantee against doctrines such as had been imputed to him: it was, "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." He had made inquiries respecting the reverend gentleman himself, and had found that he was highly respectable in character.

expressed himself obliged to the right hon. gentleman for the opportunity afforded him of removing any erroneous impression which he might have been the means of occasioning. In the report which had been given of his speech on the night to which the right hon. gentleman alluded, he had seen many things which he did not state. He had been made to say, that the procession went to church bearing effigies, with the insignia of a pope and a bishop; that on their arrival at the church, they stripped the effigies of their robes, and threw them into the fire; and that then a clergyman preached a sermon which was nothing less than sedition. Now, he stood in the judgment of the House, whether he had said this. As to his having charged the clergyman with preaching sedition, all he had said on that subject was—"I conceive a sermon preached under such circumstances, to be sedition against man, and blasphemy against God." He was quite ready to admit that this clergyman, or any other who acted as he had done, thought he was doing right, but still he must disapprove of his conduct.

said, the House were so often under the painful necessity of hearing of the distresses of the country, that he felt divided between the aversion to occupy their time, and the sense of duty to the county he represented. The petition which he had to present came from the presbytery of Hamilton, and gave the details of the misery and degradation of a large portion of that county. It was from a body of men who seldom approached that House—a presbytery, which consisted, as gentlemen acquainted with Scotland knew, of the clergymen of several parishes (in this case of 14). The petitioners stated, that according to the rules of the church government of Scotland, it was their duty to inquire into the state of their flocks. That they found that the wages of a labouring man were not sufficient to maintain a family—that many labouring men could not attend the churches for want of decent clothes; and that from the pressure of poverty the education of their children was often neglected—that there existed much disaffection, which, though not springing directly from want, was the result of designing men working on poverty. He hoped the House would take into its consideration the distresses of the labouring poor, for it would but have half done its work if it merely suppressed disaffection, which, while want prevailed, would continually recur. Among other means of relieving the distress without applying for public money, it had occurred to him that there was much waste land in that neighbourhood, of which the proprietors would willingly relinquish their rights in behalf of the poor for a term of years, if the government would also relinquish the taxes.

bore testimony to the high respectability of the petitioners, whose statements spoke too strongly for themselves to need the aid of his assertions. When it was considered that an attention to the ordinances of religion, and a care for the education of their children, had been among the marked characteristics of the Scottish population, the distress would be conceived to be severe which had compelled them to neglect these duties. That part of the country from which the petition came was in this respect peculiarly unfortunate, that having been the seat of flourishing manufactures, the persons once engaged in them were now thrown as burthens upon the landholders.

hoped that the political economists, who had ridiculed the plan he had proposed for examination (that of Mr. Owen), would think of some practical means of relieving the poor.

said, his majesty's government had not been inattentive to the distresses of Scotland, but they doubted whether they could take measures to relieve it by public money, without injustice to the whole empire. Cases of as severe distress had occurred in other parts, especially in England; and in the answer of the earl of Liverpool to the duke of Hamilton, the noble earl had stated that he saw no principle on which he could apply the resources of the country at large to the relief of that local distress. The proprietors of land in Scotland had the power, though they were not subjected to the obligation, of assessing themselves for the relief of the poor; and though they had gone as far as it was expected they should in the way of voluntary contributions, it was to be recollected that many proprietors in this part of the island had been taxed for the maintenance of the poor to the whole extent of their property, and it was only by that heavy contribution that the cry of the poor was prevented from reaching that House. He allowed there was a peculiar pressure of distress in the district alluded to, arising, among various causes, from that alternation of manufacturing prosperity and stagnation, which was the distinguishing feature of the present day. As to relief from the public, it was known that some time ago a certain sum was placed in the hands of commissioners, to be issued to relieve manufacturing distress, security being given for the repayment. Half a million of that sum now remained unexpended in the hands of the commissioners, and was strictly applicable to that part of Scotland, and would be advanced if any visible security for repayment in three, four, or five years, could be assigned. It was also the intention of the chancellor of the exchequer to move a vote under the head of civil contingencies, which would obviate difficulties as to the securities to be assigned. The gentlemen of Scotland, therefore, had the power of assisting themselves. For a long series of years they had been free from the evil of compulsory assessments; he hoped they would now be inclined to avail themselves of the power they possessed, especially as the whole burthen might not fall upon them within a year, but might be extended over a long course of years. In this part of the country there was no relief from the immediate pressure of an assessment which might operate within the year to the extent of the whole of the property assessed. But in Scotland the proprietors had no such burthen upon their rental. Would it then be fair, that the proprietors of England, amidst all the distress which surrounded them, should be called upon, not only to relieve the distress of their own poor, but also to contribute to the relief of the poor of Scotland? It would at least become the proprietors of that part of the kingdom, to show that they had done all that was in their power for the poor of their respective districts, before they made any application of this nature.

alleged, that the pro- prietary of Scotland had left nothing in their power undone, to mitigate the sufferings, and relieve the wants of their distressed countrymen. But what he meant to refer to in the question which he yesterday took occasion to put to the noble lord was, with regard to the commercial relations of the country, and the general state of its manufactures, into which he thought a serious inquiry should be immediately instituted. It was obviously the change which had taken place in the country with respect to commerce and manufactures, that had occasioned the existing distress, and parliament was called upon to consider of some means to remedy the evils resulting from that change.

said, the House had now before it a petition in favour of a number of industrious deserving manufacturers, which contained such a detail of calamity as could not be heightened either by the speech of his noble friend or by any colouring that eloquence could confer, and yet the noble lord gravely and coolly said, that neither parliament nor government could do any thing for the relief or mitigation of such calamity, beyond a certain sum that might be lent on security for its repayment. But how did it become the noble lord and his colleagues thus to reply to a petition concerning the distressed manufacturers, considering that the great cause of their misery was to be found in the policy which those ministers had been pursuing for a series of years? The noble lord had observed, that the Scotch proprietors should show an adequate sympathy for their poor countrymen, before they applied to that House for pecuniary relief, especially as those proprietors had a power of levying taxes upon themselves. This sympathy, he would tell the noble lord, had been evinced by the Scotch proprietors, who had levied taxes upon themselves for the relief of their poor; but the fact was, that the property which they possessed was not sufficient to afford the amount of relief required. But, independently of the taxes paid in common by these proprietors, each was found as beneficent as his means qualified him towards his distressed neighbour. It came to his knowledge, that the relation of an hon. friend of his, who was a member of that House, allowed, out of his own private purse, no less than eight pounds a week for the relief of the poor in his immediate vicinity. —But the noble lord appeared to think that, notwithstanding the experience of this country, Scotland should be visited with the evils of the poor laws. To such a proposition, he hoped that House would never give its assent. But it was vain to think of any palliatives for the distress of the people, or to attempt to evade its consideration. The noble lord and his colleagues might go on in persuading parliament to adopt coercive measures to meet, some part of the consequence resulting from the present distress, but those measures must be inefficient while the great cause of the evil was allowed to remain without redress or inquiry.

disclaimed any wish to transfer the poor laws to Scotland; but he would repeat, that while the proprietors of England were incumbered with the poor's rate, in addition to their other burthens, it would be too much to expect that they should also contribute from their funds to the relief of the poor of Scotland, while the proprietors of that country were altogether exempt from the poor laws.

animadverted upon the declaration of the noble lord, that government was ready to lend money for the relief of the people, provided security were given for its repayment. But when the noble lord made this proposition, he would ask, whether it was possible that he or any reasoning man thought that the present distress was merely temporary? For his own part, he believed that this distress, so far from being temporary, was increasing every day; and he was persuaded that it must continue to become still worse, unless measures were promptly taken to relieve the trade and finances of the country. He hoped that before the recess the House would have some opportunity of delivering an opinion upon these important topics, and especially upon that of finance. The House might go on in passing coercive measures to meet the effect of the present system, but these were only temporising expedients, and unless the great questions to which he had referred, should be gone into, parliament would have closed its present sittings without having done any good. They might think that they had removed alarm, but let it be recollected that the evil which gave rise to alarm—that the distress and discontents of the people, still remained.

suggested, that to secure the payment of the interest of the proposed loan, a new toll should be imposed on the roads in the district to which that loan was to be granted.

hoped it was the impression upon every man's mind in this case, that some relief should be afforded to the poor people to whom the petition referred; for in a country where there was so much wealth, it would be quite inhuman to allow persons of this description to suffer absolute want. Were these poor persons among the disaffected, that might be a reason for feeling less sympathy in their favour; but even that would not justify the House in turning a deaf ear to their complaints. Here, however, those, for whom relief was supplicated were as remarkable for the propriety of their demeanour, as for the severity of their sufferings. There was, no doubt, a material difference between the situation of England and Scotland, in consequence of the application of a portion of the poor's rate in this country to the payment of wages: but this application was one of the many evils belonging to the system of the poor's rates, to which system he hoped that House would devote its serious attention; for the evils of this system were of grievous magnitude.

concurred with the noble lord, that as this was a question between England and Scotland, it would be unfair to burthen the proprietors of the former for the relief of the poor of the latter, especially as the proprietors of Scotland were exempt from the poor laws, through the mal-administration of which the people of England suffered so severely. But while he deprecated the mal-administration of this system, he begged to be understood as a decided advocate for the principle of the poor laws. If any proposition should be made for the repeal of those laws he would stand up as its opponent. For he was quite convinced of the equity of the principle of those laws, however he lamented their improper administration, and especially the misappropriation of the funds collected by those laws in the payment of wages.

protested against the view which had been taken of this subject on both sides of the House. He protested, in the first place, against the observation of his hon. friend, that this was a question between England and Scot- and, and secondly, against the doctrine of the noble lord, that no relief should be granted to the poor, who were the subject of this petition, unless the proprietary of the district should submit to the poor's rate. To the observation of his hon. friend he would say, that he thought parliament equally bound to attend to the complaints, or to relieve the distress of every part of the inhabitants of Great-Britain, all of whom had contributed to form the fund from which that relief was solicited; and to the position of the noble lord he would observe that it would not be right to extend the poor laws to Scotland. But while he said this, let it not be understood that he was an enemy to the principle of these laws. That principle was indeed so entwined with the institutions of this country, that any one who should propose the repeal of the laws which rested upon it, must be deemed fitter for another place than for that House. But if these laws were restored to their original use, they would create no dissatisfaction in the country. It was their mal-administration, and especially the misappropriation of the funds in payment of wages, which had occasioned so much discontent. But, to return to the petition, he trusted that its prayer would be duly attended, and that some relief would be granted to such a deserving class of sufferers who, in fact, desired only to be employed and to be rewarded for their industry by the means of common subsistence.

, on moving that the petition should be printed, stated, that it was a mistake to suppose, that there were no poor's rates in Scotland, those rates being very considerable, although there were no poor laws in that country. But even if the system of poor laws were established in Scotland, were gentlemen aware that there were no less than between 20 and 30,000 persons in Glasgow who were not natives of that country, and how were those persons to be relieved? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had last year obtained from parliament the grant of 100,000l. for building churches in Scotland, on the ground that the people were in want of such churches, but there was a paragraph in this petition stating that the people could not go to church from want of clothing. Would it not, then, be but considerate in the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues, to consider of the means of supplying the people with that clothing, without which these new churches would be of no utility.

argued against the principle upon which it was proposed to accede to the prayer of this petition. The manufacturers and merchants of Scotland had, as well as the same classes in other places, materially profited from that monopoly of trade which Great Britain had enjoyed throughout the war. Those people, through whose labour that profit was obtained, were now distressed in consequence of the cessation of that monopoly; and was it fair, that instead of having their distress relieved by the capitalists whom they had enriched, that relief should be demanded from the public funds? He called upon the House to resist such a demand; any concession to it must serve to establish a most dangerous precedent.

rose to move for the re-appointment of the Committee to inquire into the state of the Scotch Burghs. He understood, that no opposition on the part of ministers was intended to the motion. The only alteration he should propose, was, to substitute, in the place of a gentleman who was not likely to attend, another hon. member. The report that was made by the former committee, was before the House, and he could appeal to it, as confirming, every observation he had ever uttered on the subject. The abuses proved to exist, were so gross, so perpetual, and he might say, so flagitious, that nothing but an investigation into the causes could provide a remedy. These abuses sprung from the practice of self-election in corporate bodies endowed with the power of perpetuating the abuse. When he had introduced the subject first to the consideration of the House, it was retorted upon him, that whatever he might profess, his object was parliamentary reform. He repeated now what he then stated, that neither himself nor the petitioners from the Royal Burghs sought parliamentary reform directly, although neither he nor they disguised from the House, that any alteration in the burghs must collaterally and in a small degree affect the representation in that House. If parliamentary reform grew out of the change, it would do so collaterally, and not directly. The strength of the existing abuses were fully illustrated in the fact, that three most populous places. Inverness, Aberdeen, and even Edinburgh, were under a sentence of disfranchisement. As to Edinburgh, though he saw in his place the right hon. member (Mr. W. Dundas), yet it was now a question before the Court of Session, whether there had been an election or not? Aberdeen was in a worse state, as it had no vote whatever. Inverness, he believed to be in the same predicament. Under these circumstances, he was warranted in asking the House to pursue the inquiry further. The noble lord concluded with moving, "that the Petitions from the Royal Burghs of Scotland be referred to a Select Committee."

observed, that the noble lord, in moving for the renewal of the Committee, had said a great deal, of which he (Mr. D.) had never heard before, and which was not in any degree confirmed, even by the luminous report of the last committee. As to the election of Edinburgh, the only question arose from the chance absence of one of the magistrates. The noble lord had stated the Burgh of Aberdeen to be bankrupt; that he denied, and dared him to the proof. The noble lord had that night struggled to show, that parliamentary reform was not his object; he believed the noble lord before to feel that parliament would not suffer those corporate rights, guaranteed by the articles of the Union, to be shaken. All that could be expected was, to replace the boroughs in the state in which they stood previously to that compact, so that no burgess should be made liable to debts, over which he had no control.

reminded the House, that during the discussions of last session, he had uniformly maintained, that the burgh of Aberdeen was not bankrupt. He could now prove that facts justified his opinion: Aberdeen was paying an interest of four per cent on all its debts, and in the course of a year five per cent would be paid up on the arrears of the two last years. The town of Aberdeen was considered good security, and most of its creditors would feel greatly disappointed were the debts paid off. He did not rise to oppose the motion, for as far as the labours of the first Committee went, they were as productive of as little evil as of good.

rose, pursuant to notice, to move, "That there be laid before this House, a return of the number of persons liable to be struck off from the Chelsea Out Pension List, in consequence of His Royal Highness the Prince Regent's Proclamation, dated 28th October 1819; distinguishing those who originally enlisted for seven years under the Act 46 Geo. 3rd, whose time of service, according to engagement, has expired, and who are entitled under that act to certain pensions in consideration of wounds." His object in so moving was, to be enabled to move hereafter, for leave to bring in a bill to expunge so much from the act, commonly called the Chelsea Pension Act, as affected a certain number of persons now deprived;, unjustly as he conceived, of pensions intended for the reward of their service. He did this with the greater pleasure, not only as he conceived that his motion affected a strong subject of public inquiry, and a subject involving points of no small constitutional importance; but also, because it affected a class of persons, than whose claims, he would venture to say, on the justice, the sympathy, the humanity, and the gratitude of this country, it would be difficult to conceive any of a more sacred or imperious character. These men had come forward at the very time when it was found necessary to recruit the army by a new and invigorating system, in order to enable it to cope against a veteran and successful enemy. They had earned their well-contested glories, and had now retired on small but honourable pensions; which pensions, if the law had any power at all, the law of the land ought to establish as their property. He required parliament to look at their own acts, and to look at, what he thought, the illegal proclamation of October last. That proclamation; set forth, that all those persons (excepting certain regiments only from its operation) who should not report themselves for a certain length of service, should be deprived of the pensions which they then enjoyed. Now, there were many hundreds who, would be affected by this proclamation; particularly those (whose, claims he should support) who were originally destined for seven years service; and who, having received certain wounds, were entitled to certain pensions, settled: by the provisions of what was commonly called Mr. Windham's act. Such persons having received their discharges, and being in fact, no longer soldiers, he would ask by what right, by what law, by what power, they could now be deprived of the pensions awarded to them by the act. He confined himself to that description of persons whose term of service had expired, and who received such pensions. An hon. gentleman the other night had required them to admit the right of the Crown to deprive persons of their pensions, even in cases where they had been granted for life: he did not not intend to answer his requisition; he would not answer it, because it was not relevant to this subject—but more particularly because, if necessary, he could find cases directly to the point, which would go quite counter to the hon. gentleman's assertion. His own case was that of persons who had served their term of service; and he rested it upon three grounds —upon enactments, upon regulations, and upon authorities: on enactments, because of Mr. Windham's bill; on authorities, because of the opinions expressed in the speeches of all the hon. gentlemen who had spoken upon that bill, at the time of its introduction into that House; and on regulations, because of those which were adopted conformably to it. [The noble lord here read two clauses of the act. 46 Geo. 3rd]. If this bill did not give to the soldier a vested right and property to such pensions as should have been appointed by the rules and regulations in force at the time of the enactment, he should be glad if the hon. gentlemen opposite would tell him what it did do. In fact, he could not in any other way understand what it meant. If it intended otherwise, it was an absurdity, or worse than an absurdity; for it would hold out certain advantages to men enlisting themselves for a certain number of years; whereas, after so enlisting and serving, they would find that they were liable to be called out at any time of life under penalties. These men had retired with honourable scars, and had received pensions to which these honourable scars established their best title; but then came the proclamation of his majesty, dated in last October, and turned the whole of their claim to pension into waste paper. It called them out, perhaps at very great inconvenience to themselves, from their wives, their families, and their homes, and possibly from their trades and occupations, under penalty. He would ask, how were they to punish men such as these for desertion? He should apprehend they could not do so: for being, in fact, no longer soldiers, they could not come under the enactments of the Mutiny bill, which only applied to the precise description of persons mentioned in its preamble: and although these "might not be actually discharged" from further service, yet the case was quite different with this body of men (for whom he addressed them), who might be broken in spirits and enfeebled in body, in consequence of wounds received in their country's service; and could not therefore be contemplated by the provisions of the Mutiny bill. Those individuals, in consequence of those very wounds which obliged them to retire, would be placed under the necessity of obeying any call made on them by government, under the penalty of being deprived of their pensions. If the bill were to have a contrary operation, it would be a measure, not affecting the unwounded soldier, but grievously affecting that class of men, who, having performed great public service, deserved a commensurate public reward.—He next came to the rules and regulations of Chelsea hospital, which applied to their case. If any one of those could be pointed out that tended to nullify Mr. Windham's bill, he then should deny the right of the Crown, by promulging any set of resolutions, to nullify existing laws. There was, however, nothing of the kind in the rules and regulations. There was not amongst them any one provision, which in any degree affected the interest of those persons. If a reference to these rules and regulations did not make his case strong enough, he should further support it by quoting several authorities, the force of which, he believed, would not be disputed by hon. gentlemen opposite [Here the noble lord read an extract from Mr. Windham's speech, in which he insisted upon the necessity of keeping strict faith with those who should enlist under the idea of engaging for limited service; and explained the advantages of his bill.] In addition to this, he possessed also the authority of the noble lord, the secretary for foreign affairs, of the right hon. the president of the board of control, and of the late Mr. Perceval; and he denied the noble lord (Palmerston) to produce any thing of equal authority which could be held to affect the claims of these men. He would venture to say, that no act could be found which might authorize the taking away of similar pensions, except in the cases of persons who had engaged for life, or for a certain number of years, and had not gone through their stipulated service. A departure from a compact like that to which he had directed their attention, would be fatal to the spirit, and almost to the existence of the service. The superannuated soldier had imposed a debt of gratitude upon his country, which could never be repaid but by the most anxious, the most tender, the most vigilant solicitude, to secure for him that reward and that repose which his past services had so eminently merited.

objected to the shape in which the noble lord had brought forward his motion. The paper which he had called for was not that which was necessary for his purpose. He was very willing, however, to meet the noble lord upon the principle of this bill. Its intention evidently was, to enlarge the military force of that day, by holding out farther inducements to recruits. The noble lord thought that this bill gave a permanent and indefeasible right to the soldier to enjoy his pension, under whatever circumstances he might have received it. This was not the case, nor had such a regulation ever been contemplated by Mr. Windham: all the law did was, to create a right under certain conditions, which conditions or regulations were reserved for the Crown to make. What were the words of the act? With regard to the 5th section, it did not bear at all upon this question. The only meaning of the 5th section was, that men, who entered the service under certain regulations should not be deprived of the benefit arising from those regulations by the Crown, at any subsequent period. In short, it went to secure to the soldier the benefit of the regulation which existed at the time of his enlistment. But the third section was that on which the question turned. The 3rd section said, "that from and after the passing of the act, &c, any soldier shall be entitled to his discharge by reason of the expiration of the period of service, fixed in the orders and regulations of his majesty's government;" leaving it in the power of the king to fix the period of service: and it further provided "that men so discharged should be entitled to receive such pensions, allowance, or relief, as should be fixed in the orders and regulations in such cases respectively." These words he apprehended, did not give a perpetual right to

║

the enjoyment of a pension; and if they did not, what did they give? In his opinion, these words were introduced to give conditional pensions to those who had not received pensions previous to the passing of the act. The noble lord, he thought, had entirely mistaken the object of this clause. It was well known, that previous to the passing of the act, the pension granted to the soldier was entirely dependent on the bounty of the Crown; and in this state of things, not alone was the man bound to prove a case of service and disability from wounds, but he must also produce the recommendation of his commanding officer. Now, in the opinion of Mr. Windham, it was desirable to do away with this discretion, and to enact, that if a man should present himself, in every other respect with a sufficient claim, his pension should be granted, and he should not be subject to the caprice of his commanding officer, or to the unjust or improper exercise of the authority of the Crown. It only remained then to say, what was the period at the end of which a man should be entitled to a pension, or what degree of disability would justify his claiming. This point was left in the discretion of the Crown, who adopted such regulations as the circumstances of the service seemed to warrant; and to these regulations, whatever they might be, the soldier was bound to submit. This he thought, was the only fair interpretation of this act. But the noble lord said that he had authorities which led to a different interpretation. Now, he was sure he could refer to the authority of Mr. Windham himself, as corroborative of his proposition, that this bill did not give to a man an indefeasible right to his pension. If either Mr. Windham or general Fitzpatrick had entertained such a notion, they would have distinctly stated it on the passing of the bill; but so far from this being the case, the regulations adopted under their auspices, after the passing of the act, clearly proved the converse of such a proposition. In fixing the periods for which the men should enlist, it was seen that for the first seven years no pension was granted; but that if an enlistment took place for fourteen year's and that period was completed, the right to a pension existed; and if the service was extended to 21 years, the right arose to a larger pension; but if a soldier were discharged before the completion of the three full periods of service, namely, 21 years, and should be in the receipt of his pension, it was further provided, that he should forfeit that pension, unless when called upon he agreed to complete the full three periods—that was to say, if a man were discharged at the end of 14 years, and was in the enjoyment of his pension, if occasion existed for his services for the 7 remaining years of the whole period of 21 years, and he should refuse to serve them, he lost his pension altogether. It was impossible to place any other construction upon the words of the act. Unless this were the case, he apprehended the House would think a very bad bargain had been made for the country. The regulation which fixed the rate of pensions given to men disabled from wounds was open to precisely the same construction; and if the man were able, he was equally liable with the man who had received his pension for length of service, to be called upon to serve his full three periods of service. If this were not the law, the country would be placed in a most preposterous condition. The object of Mr. Windham obviously was, to keep a corps de reserve, but this object would have been altogether defeated, if the conclusion come to by the noble lord were correct. And what else would be the result? Why, men who had entered the service at 18 years old, would, at the end of 14 years service, when they had arrived at the extreme old age of 32, be for the rest of their lives entitled to partake of the bounty of the country, without any opportunity existing of calling upon them to make some return for such generosity! This would indeed be a monstrous state of things. Of pensioners there were not less than 75,000 men, none of whom would then contribute to the public service. It was true, that many of these men were unable to serve; but a great number of them were useful and effective troops. He very much regretted the noble lord had chosen this particular period for bringing forward this question. All he could say was, that the act granted pensions under particular regulations, and that those who received pensions must, in order to entitle themselves to their continuance, act in conformity with those regulations.

perfectly agreed in the construction put upon the first part of this act by the noble secretary at war; namely, that where pensions were granted to soldiers for length of service, the Crown had a right to call for their ser- vices until they had completed the full periods which the conditions in the regulations alluded to distinctly stipulated. He did not agree with him, however, in the other branch of his definition; namely, that which referred to pensions received for wounds. In such cases he thought a similar right of calling for the services of the soldier did not exist. At all events, doubts existed on the subject; and he thought those doubts should be construed favourably for the soldier.

said, the only question here was, what was the condition upon which the soldier enlisted? The regulations adopted by the officers of the Crown was, that a soldier, in order to entitle himself to the enjoyment of his pension, must render himself liable to be called upon to serve the three full periods of his enlistment, amounting to 21 years. These regulations were suggested by Mr. Windham himself; and if he had meant to come to a different conclusion, he would no doubt, have made his bill clearly intelligible. From the beginning, it was evident that Mr. Windham contemplated the securing of the service of the soldier for 21 years; and very few instances had occurred in which the soldier was disposed to question this proposition: on the contrary they were generally anxious to disguise their wounds, so that they might get into the veteran battalions.

said, that with regard to the question of pensions for length of service, it clearly appeared that the soldier was subject to the conditions laid down in the regulations adopted by the Crown. The same rule, however, did not apply to that class of persons who received pensions for wounds. In the former case, the words of the regulation were, that they should only receive their pensions on the condition that when called upon they should complete their service for their three full periods; in the latter, however, the words were that they should "complete their service for the period for which they had been engaged." In these regulations, therefore, there was a marked distinction, and he apprehended if a man had only engaged for seven years, and received a pension for a wound obtained during that period, he would, according to the words of the regulation, have, to all intents and purposes, completed the period for which he had been engaged, and could not be compelled to serve longer than seven years.

thought the question in this case was extremely narrow. The only point at issue was, what construction was to be put upon the words "the period of service for which they had been engaged." In his opinion, if a man enlisted for seven years, that was the period of his engagement; and if he became entitled to a pension during that period, the Crown had no right to call for his services any longer.

rose to oppose the measure. This bill, he said, had now arrived near its last stage, and still the discussion on its principle had not taken place. No gentleman on the other side came forward to defend it against the objections which had been stated to it. At first, when it was proposed to discuss it on the second reading, the noble lord opposite had wished the debate to be postponed to a future stage; that stage was now past, and the discussion of the principle of the bill was deferred till the third reading. He rose to oppose the bill, because, both as taken by itself, and as composing a part of the system of measures which was introduced along with it, it appeared to him as one of the most vital importance, affecting the liberties and constitution of the country—a measure, not calculated to call forth declamations, but to be opposed as effecting a change in the practical privileges and rights of the people. This was not like the Seditious Meetings bill, of a temporary nature, but was intended to be permanent, and could only be defended on one of two grounds—either that the freedom of the press had been at all times an evil that required correction; or that it was a privilege which, though good in itself, we were now unworthy of enjoying. Now, so far was the first of these positions from being true, that it might on the contrary be proved that it was productive of great practical good; that ever since the Revolution, its tendency had been to preserve order and to ensure good government; and that nothing had operated so much to prevent troubles, or even a total dissolution of the government. This might be illustrated by recurring to times anterior to the Revo- lution, when a free press did not exist, and when, consequently, the people, having no other way of expressing their opinions, had vented them in acts of insurrection and violence. Although the hon. member for Corfe-castle had last night deprecated the existence of the Star Chamber, he had reminded the House, as a kind of advantage, that a free press did not then form a part of our constitution. But what was the consequence? What did history say of those times in which there was no freedom of the press? It described a perpetual contest as existing between the government and the people—the Crown attempting encroachments on the one hand, and the people rising to oppose those encroachments on the other. Having no means of expressing their opinion, or of influencing the government by a declaration of their claims, they were obliged to recur to physical force; and the government was not warned of its danger till its very existence was threatened. He might amply illustrate this by an appeal to the period of the reign of Charles 1st. He might even say, that the revolution which then took place would not have happened, had the king been warned in time of the wishes of his people through the medium of a free press. Nor would the encroachments which followed in the two subsequent reigns of Charles 2nd and James 2nd have occurred, had the dangers of them been pointed out through the same medium. So far was a free press from being dangerous to governments, that it was their best protection, as it prevented, by an amicable understanding between the authorities and the people, those popular commotions which must always happen when grievances, either real or imaginary, produced a separation between them. The hon. member for Corfe-castle seemed to take great credit to himself for showing that the eminent persons who conducted the Revolution had consented to restrictions on the press during the first year of the reign of William 3rd; but he had forgotten to state, when he mentioned that the then ministers had introduced restriction bills, how often they had been rejected by parliament. The severe laws of Charles 2nd, he believed, had never been re-enacted but once in William's' reign; and that was in 1692. The re-enactment was recommended by the committee on the expiring laws, and had passed on that recommendation; but in 1694 it was rejected. Attempts were made by the ministers to renew the bill till 1697, but were always defeated, and then finally given up. It was not fair, therefore, in describing the attempts of the government to introduce restrictions, to omit entirely all mention of the example of parliament resisting those attempts. With respect to the Seditious Meeting bill, he opposed it on its first introduction, because it was intended to be perpetual; but agreed to its third reading, because the clause enacting its perpetuity had been withdrawn. He opposed the present bill for the same reason that he at first did that for suppressing public meetings, because it was intended permanently to restrain the expression of public opinion. What was the difference between a free and a despotic government, but that public opinion was expressed, and produced its influence on the former, and not on the latter? A government might be theoretically good, and yet practically unjust and arbitrary, if the influence of public opinion were withdrawn; while, on the other hand, public opinion, acting on a government with great theoretical imperfections, might produce most of the practical benefits of the most perfect system of social subordination. Theoretically speaking, the manner of electing members for the House of Commons promised none of the advantages of a fair representation of the people, and a part of the constitution was thus an absurdity; but the House of Commons thus constituted, as had been said by a right hon. gentleman (Mr. Canning) "worked well," adopted wise measures, and enacted wise laws. But why did it "work well?" By the influence of public opinion operating upon it. And how could the public opinion express itself so as to produce these practical benefits? Why, through the medium of public assemblies and a free press. It had been said by hon. members who supported the measures of administration on the present occasion, that great as the privileges of meeting publicly and discussing freely were, they were still liable to abuse, and ought to be restrained. From the class of persons who of late had called and attended the great meetings which the Seditious Meetings bill was intended to put down, he entirely dissented; he was decidedly opposed to universal suffrage and annual parliaments, the doctrines which they supported; but still he thought that public meetings would not produce the advantages of making known to government the wants and wishes of the people, if restrictions were imposed on the expression of opinions, however absurd; and, in the same manner, the press could not produce all the good which it was calculated to produce, if it was not (he would not say licentious, but) bordering on licentiousness. Unless it could speak freely of public men and public measures, unless it could examine into the conduct of all the departments of the government, and denounce abuses wherever detected, unless it could discuss every proceeding of the administration, not excluding even the administration of justice, it could not produce its full effect, nor could our government and institutions remain entire. The administration of justice could not be long expected to continue pure, unless the proceedings of the courts were made known, and the conduct of the judges watched by a very free and vigilant press. The judges could not be questioned as to their conduct, but in parliament, which thus furnished no immediate or practical remedy against their malversation; but the press, which made known their acts, and was ready to censure their conduct, supplied the immediate and certain means of enforcing the performance of their duty, or punishing their departure from it. The Houses of Parliament and the courts of justice could thus be kept within the pale of law and constitutional conduct, only by the exertions of a free, a very free press. The liberty of the press was a part of our constitution. It had been made so in 1694, when the censorship was abolished; and having remained so for 126 years, it did not become gentlemen to go back to the reign of Charles 2nd, or James 2nd, for precedents of restriction; nor to that of Alfred, as the hon. and learned solicitor-general had done, to prove that securities before publication was not an infringement of our rights, because that monarch had things securities for each other. An hon. gentleman (Mr. Bankes) had stated with an air of discovery, that there was nothing about a free press in the Bill of Rights, and had inferred from the omission that a free press was then regarded as an object of little consequence. He admitted the fact, but denied the inference. The freedom of the press was not secured by the Bill of Rights, merely because the Bill of Rights contained only those rights that were infringed by the Crown without an act of parliament, and the great evil against which it was intended to guard was the dispensing with acts of parliament by the Crown. But the censorship of the press had been exercised by act of parliament, and therefore could not be brought forward as an encroachment of the Crown which it was necessary to provide against by a claim of freedom of discussion from the Crown. It ought to be recollected, that though the liberty of the press was not, for the reason he had stated, secured in the Bill of Rights, it became the law of the land only five years afterwards, the Bill of Rights having passed in 1689, and the censorship having been abolished in 1694. He confessed he was surprised at some of the doctrines which he heard stated in that House, in which it was maintained that the freedom of the press was inconsistent with the security of private property. Whether was private property, he would ask, most secure in free or despotic states? On the answer to this question would depend the answer to the objection against a free press. If the present bill passed, it would as essentially change the constitution as a bill to abolish the House of Commons. If the House took away the channel by which public opinion expressed itself, he considered the first step taken towards revolution. Unless means were allowed to the people of acting upon the government and the legislature, by public opinion, they could only act by physical force; and thus a foundation would be laid for a revolution of the kind which they contemplated, or one which he should more deprecate, ending in the establishment of arbitrary power. The hon. gentleman then proceeded to discuss the clauses of the bill, and contended that they gave a complete power to the Crown to allow the publication of any thing agreeable to the Crown, as no prosecution could be carried on for a transgression of the act without the authority of the attorney-general, who might refuse his consent if he wished to encourage the publication. The bill gave a complete power to the Treasury to limit the class of persons who should print and publish works of a certain sort. The hon. gentleman from the importance of the measure pressed the necessity of delaying the further consideration of it till after the holidays. Many members had already left town, and it did not become ministers to hurry a bill of this kind through the House with a thin attendance. It should be discussed after the adjournment, when gentlemen could come to the discussion with cool and dispassionate minds, prepared to examine the proposed law in all its bearings, to ascertain the effect it would have on public liberty, and its influence on the constitution. [Hear].

expressed a desire to see the bill pass with all due expedition. He held in his hand a letter from Ireland, stating, that several emissaries had appeared in the western counties, organizing the people, whose machinations ought to be checked.

moved the second reading of the Blasphemous and Seditious Libel bill.

felt much diffidence in addressing the House upon this subject. His diffidence was increased by the consciousness, that he could not add any thing to the unanswered and unanswerable arguments already urged from his side of the House against these measures. He trusted, however, that as he did not often, claim the indulgence of the House, he should experience it upon the present occasion. He protested against the whole of the system of measures of which this however appeared to him to be the most objectionable. Although he would admit some of those measures to be locally and temporarily necessary, yet he could not help thinking that the whole, brought forward and supported as they were, formed the most alarming attack ever made by parliament upon the liberties and constitution of the country. Here he must say, in reference to what he considered as the source and cause of all the measures brought forward—he meant the proceedings at Manchester—with respect to those proceedings, all he heard in that House only strengthened his previous conviction that inquiry, rigid and impartial inquiry, was loudly called for, and was indispensably necessary for the purposes of justice. The most positive assertions, and the most distinct offers of proof from his side of the House, were answered only by counter-assertions and by ex parte statements contained in the papers on the table. The legality of the meeting was still a matter of question, if it was not positively established. The dispersion of the meeting appeared at the present moment to have been unnecessary; illegal, and cruel. The House of Commons would therefore have only done their duty to the country—his majesty's ministers would have consulted their own interest, if the present measures had been preceded by strict inquiry; and if an attempt had been made to alleviate the distresses of the people, rather than recourse had to severe and coercive proceedings. But all inquiry had been rejected, and parliament had been called on, in a moment of alarm, not unfounded but greatly exaggerated, to legislate, not temporarily, or according to the exigency, but permanently, and in a manner that involved the innocent with the guilty. The right of meeting and petitioning was fettered for five years, and by other measures our liberties were to suffer permanently. But, alarming as the measures themselves were, he thought the manner in which they were received in that House, and the arguments by which they were supported, still more alarming. He had heard with astonishment the greatest blessing and the best security for the tranquillity of the country, represented as an evil, and the cause of disaffection and disloyalty. An hon. member had represented the general diffusion of education among the poor as the cause of those evils which now existed. At such an assertion he could only express his astonishment. Another hon. and learned member had referred to the security required from publicans as similar to the recognizances proposed in the Stamp-duties bill: but this was an argument which did not bear at all upon the subject. The state of morals in this county was not such as to call for such a measure as the present. It was not, he trusted, necessary for him to guard himself from misapprehension by expressing the abhorrence which he felt at the principles of blasphemy which were propagated. He admitted that some miscreants did circulate such principles, but he believed that their number was far less than it was represented by the other side of the House. As proofs that there did not exist in the country that spirit of blasphemy and infidelity from which some hon. gentlemen anticipated so much change, let the House look to the Bible Societies; let them look to the various societies for the propagation of the gospel, societies patronized, not by the rich and the great alone, but by all classes above the very paupers; let them look at the new churches and chapels building in every part of the country—let them look at the immense increase of meeting-houses. Many clergymen in the church were heard to complain that the people did not think the devotion of our own church sufficient for them. He was sincerely attached to the church, and did not wish to encourage methodism; but he could appeal to the increase of methodism as proof that blasphemy was not generally prevalent. But even admitting the evil to exist to a far greater degree than it really did, surely it was incumbent upon those who brought in the present measures, to show that the existing laws were not sufficient to meet that evil, before they called upon the House to pass other laws, by which the dearest privileges of Englishmen were invaded and destroyed. Since 1810, only one individual had been prosecuted for blasphemy, as appeared from the return upon their table; and he had been successfully prosecuted. The conviction and punishment of that individual could not be supposed to encourage blasphemy. The severity of his punishment might be thought sufficient without severer laws. Parliament had already restricted the right of public meeting; they had already repressed, and properly, all unnecessary military trainings; they had already, by too severe a law, authorized magistrates to search for arms. They had just had before them, a law proposing new and unheard, of securities against the possible abuse, or rather an imagined abuse, of the intention of writing. Under those circumstances, the House would surely do wise to pause before they proceeded further. In urging delay, hostile though he was to the principle of this bill, and particularly to the punishment of banishment proposed in it, his object only was to gain time for consideration. At present, it was impossible to give it due attention. Those who entertained the greatest alarm upon this subject could not suffer their feelings to run away with them, so far as to apprehend any danger or evil from the delay of this bill till after the recess. He would therefore move as an amendment, that for the word "now" be substituted "the 15th of February."

could not sufficiently express his surprise at the extraordinary conduct of ministers. He asked whether it was respectful to the House, whether it was respectful to the country, that this subject should be debated night after night on his side of the House, and that not one word should be said by ministers? When the rights and liberties of the country were attacked, were hon. gentlemen on his side of the House to get up one after another, and urge the most forcible arguments against those attacks, and was the House to hear not one word in their defence but such speeches as they had heard last night. In the annals of parliament were not to be found such arguments as had been used last night in defence of these measures. Measures adopted in the time of Charles 1st, measures adopted by the long parliament, measures peculiar to the rash councils of the Stuarts, were the only precedents urged in defence of the present measures. If arguments were to be selected by the friends of the measures against themselves, none more forcible than those could be found. What worse could be said of the measures before them, than that they were paralleled only by abominable measures, passed when there was not a vestige of the liberty of the press—when there was not a trace of civil or religious freedom? Was it, he asked, by measures of this kind that we had attained to all our eminence in freedom, in commerce, in wealth, in general prosperity? Was it by measures like these we had become the admiration and envy of the world? Was it necessary to remind gentlemen, that if measures of this kind had always existed, the public mind had never been awakened, the constitution on which Englishmen so justly prided themselves had never grown up to its acknowledged excellence and strength? By repressing the free circulation and the open avowal of opinion, that warning voice which often apprised of danger and preserved from ruin, would be silenced, but instead would be generated a deep, lasting, and dangerous spirit of indignation and resentment. Men would in secret brood over their sufferings and their wrongs, till a sudden explosion would spread over the land a calamity as complete as it had been unforeseen. But he had not risen to discuss the question; he had risen only to protest against the violation of every principle of decency which appeared in the conduct of ministers. In the history of parliament—gentlemen might laugh, but he would repeat, that in the history of parliament, was nothing to be found so indecent. Objections had been urged against the legality of many parts of the present bill. Why did not learned gentlemen on the other side at least attempt an answer? The necessity of the measure was denied. Why was no proof offered of the existence of any necessity? If ministers could urge one good ground for such a measure, let them receive the gratitude of the country, instead of the abhorrence with which they and their measures were now regarded.

said, he cordially assented to all the measures proposed as calculated for the protection of our religion and our liberties. He trusted that the whole had not yet appeared of the measures prepared for stemming and turning the tide of blasphemy, which was now poured into some of the most populous, and hitherto some of the most religious parts of the country. A right hon. and learned gentleman had stated, in a speech at distinguished for piety as for eloquence, that blasphemers carried their pernicious industry so far as to convey their poison to the minds of youth by means of primers and catechisms. Of this fact, too, there was abundant proof. The magistrates of the county of Chester stated in the papers on the table, that blasphemy and sedition were taught in schools where thousands were educated. The grand jury of the same county declared that the holy scriptures were reviled and laughed at, and audaciously represented to the people as false, by blasphemers, who thus deprive the people of all the moral restraints, and all the hopes and comforts of religion. The earl of Glasgow also stated, that most active endeavours were made to instil the most poisonous principles, and to eradicate every principle of religion from a district once the most religious. A gentleman, much experienced in the knowledge of mankind, and well known to that House, had said, that it was one of the worst symptoms of the age, that sedition was conveyed to the child with his lesson. That an early and effectual antidote to this evil was necessary all must admit. It was the bounden duty of the House to extend a moral and religious education to every part of the country. The tax on cheap publications, as it would diminish the sale of them, would in so far diminish the evil which they were the means of inflicting on the country. But there were other publications, on which some restraint ought to be laid—he meant Sun- day newspapers, which were the most fruitful sources of the mischiefs which had sprung out of the abuses of the press. This evil ought to be repressed. They were a modern innovation on the repose of the sabbath: and being published when the lower orders were idle, they were read with avidity. The publishers of these papers selected and arranged all the poison of the week, and brought it out in one copious dose. The reading of these papers occupied the time and attention which ought to be devoted to the sabbath. Hence proceeded much of the increase of infidelity. Surely on one day of seven, a day divinely commanded to be kept holy, the sale of news ought, like all other sales, to be prohibited. He knew of no other shop that was allowed to be open. The shops of booksellers, libraries, and every other shop, were shut. Many of those most interested in the sale of those papers were anxious to have them repressed. He had seen a petition signed by 60 or 70 news-venders, which was intended to be presented to that House. They declared that they were placed in the most inconvenient situation by the increase of Sunday newspapers, for that they were unwilling to live by the breach of the sabbath; and those papers induced persons to frequent public-houses, and circulated principles and doctrines that were disloyal, seditious, and profane. He trusted that the suppression of those papers would be undertaken by his majesty's government as a measure that would tend much to effect the object intended by all the measures now proposed. At this crisis they had the confidence of the great majority of the country, as they had in the counsels which, sanctioned by parliament, had conducted the country triumphantly through the war. The same counsels, he trusted, would, through divine Providence, preserve unimpaired the institutions of our ancestors.

could assure the hon. gentleman who had just sat down that he would agree with him if he could prove his case. Those who knew him best, would as little suspect him of blasphemy, sedition, and impiety, as the hon. member. If he saw any reason for believing what the hon. gentleman wished the House to believe, that there were schools in the country, in which sedition and blasphemy were taught, he would be as forward as the hon. gentleman for almost any measures. But the whole evidence was mere assertion of the most vague and uncertain nature. There was nothing like proof. Not one primer or seditious spelling-book was produced which could be produced by scores and thousands, if the assertion were true. A very respectable friend had told him the same story. He had told him that he had come out of the country recently, and that sedition and blasphemy were taught in schools. He asked his friend whether he had seen any books of that kind. His friend acknowledged that he had not, but that he had had his information from good authority. But he, upon further interrogation, acknowledged that this authority had never seen such books. What, then, was his evidence? "Somebody told me that somebody told him that something existed." It so happened in every part of the information on which the subjects before them were founded—subjects on which he was unfortunately in a minority. Inquiry was refused, and they were desired to take every assertion in the papers on the table as an ascertained fact. Of those papers some were too vague, and a great many were not the result of personal knowledge. He regretted that a noble lord, the lord-lieutenant of the west riding of the county of York—whom he regarded with much respect, he had almost said personal regard—he regretted that the noble lord was not present, for he was told that he had stated it to be a fact that sedition was taught in schools. He wished to ask the noble lord, whether, having been recently in the country, he had got any further instance on the spot. If the practice existed at all, instances of its existence might have been easily found. He had been long of opinion, that religion, though inculcated in youth, could have very little authority with adults if supported only by the force of law; but he knew no common punishment sufficient for those who imbued the young mind with irreligious principles. On those subjects, then, stated by the hon. gentleman, he was a total infidel. He did not believe in the facts. While he had the deepest regard for religion, he had too much regard for civil and religious liberty to sacrifice it without conviction of necessity. He would not do it on suspicion, because suspicion ought to have no weight or authority without the support of facts. He hoped he should be excused for saying a few words here upon the kind of defence set up on his trial by Mr. Carlile—a de- fence in which proceedings in that House were alluded to, and his name, as the mover of a bill on which Mr. Carlile rested his defence, had been mentioned. He knew nothing of Mr. Carlile, and almost of the whole of his defence he was ignorant. But if he had rested his defence on the bill which he had the honour and very great satisfaction to carry through that House, no defence was ever more void of foundation. He had had a conversation with the most respectable and venerable person who was at the head of the church of England, and to whom he could appeal if he were in that House, before the bill was proposed, and they had agreed that the common law respecting blasphemy was not affected by it. He would not now touch on the law of blasphemy, nor would he enter into the question whether blasphemy might not better be left to its own fate. He was sure of the concurrence of an hon. and learned gentleman on the other side, in the opinion that Christianity needed not the support of the civil power. He was perfectly satisfied that it would occasion no danger to our religion if every statute for its defence were done away, or had never existed in this country. If the laws against blasphemy had existed, or had been put into effectual execution at former periods, the Christian religion never could have existed as it now did in this country—because the principle of those laws must go to this extent—that every government should have the power of protecting the religion which is established; and, if so, it must have been effectual against the reformers in behalf of the Catholics. This was his creed, and he should never hesitate to avow it. With respect to the question before the House, and particularly the new punishment of banishment, he begged leave to say, that he had never been more surprised than at the arguments used last night. When they considered the changes of time—when they viewed the great and extensive operations of that great innovator—when they reflected, that, as had been last night said, the great excellence of our constitution was, that like the skin of the human body, it enlarged itself, and grew in exact correspondence with the growth of the institutions which it embraced—when they observed these things, must they not think it very extraordinary, that not only the precedents of our Saxon ancestors were referred to in support of any legislative proceeding but those of the Tudors and Stuarts? He should have thought that the very circumstance of such measures having been resorted to then, would be sufficient reason for their condemnation now. If, however, any thing could surprise him more than another, it was another argument used last night. Although this was in fact a continuation of last night's debate, yet it being irregular to refer to a former debate, he would only mention the argument. The extent of education in this country had been regarded as ground of reprobation and censure rather than of applause. This was going very far back indeed. Upon the same grounds, the invention of printing ought to be condemned altogether, and reprobated as the bane of society, and John Faustus and his associates ought to have been consigned to the dungeons of the inquisition, instead of being regarded as the greatest benefactors of mankind. Knowledge was valuable, not as the exclusive privilege of a few, but as a means of happiness which extended its benefits to all classes, and enabled the lowest to raise themselves in the scale of existence. But he did not mean to go into that discussion; he had risen only to say, that the hon. member's statements were without foundation in fact.

explained. He had expressly referred to the papers on the table as containing proofs of his assertion. The magistrates of Chester had said that the facts could be verified on oath.

explained. He was aware of that; but he repeated that the assertions in those papers were too vague to be trusted.

could not avoid expressing his surprise at the very extraordinary conduct pursued by his majesty's ministers, relative to the progress of all the measures they had proposed since the meeting of parliament. He could see no reason to justify the precipitancy with which they were hurrying bills through the House, which went to shake the foundation of English liberty. He hoped, however, the manner in which they were passed, would have its due impression with the country, and that such members as were not devoted to the Treasury, would pause before they sanctioned proceedings of the most indecent and unnecessary description. In proposing a bill which went, be- yond all precedent, against the liberty of the subject, ministers did not think it worth their while either to state why it should pass, or why the modification which it was understood to be their wish to make in it hereafter, should be made. His opposition would, he feared, be ineffectual, but he should consider himself guilty of a gross breach of his public duty, did he suffer the bill to be read a second time, without being afforded sufficient time to look at its provisions.

said, that in opposing the haste with which the present measure was attempted to be forced through the House, he was only actuated by a sincere desire to perform a great public duty. He was sure the noble lord would do him the justice to say, that during the whole course of these proceedings, he had not endeavoured to retard their progress by a factious or vexatious opposition. The present bill, however, which was most novel in its provisions, was not brought forward as the other measures had been; and he conceived he was not asking too much, when he called on ministers not to press it before the Christmas recess, but to pause until they met again after the holidays. The noble lord, it seemed, was not disposed to accede to that proposition. Since that was the case, he would make his appeal to other gentlemen in the House, who, though they might approve of the measure, were not quite so eager to have it immediately disposed of. They perhaps, would agree to his proposition, which he declared, in all sincerity of heart, was not intended to impede the course of proceedings which government recommended for adoption, but was meant to afford a proper opportunity for due deliberation on one of the most important subjects that was ever brought before the legislature. Many gentlemen were, he knew, willing to give a certain degree of confidence to ministers; but he believed no member of any administration, before the present period, ever thought of introducing a bill from the other House of Parliament, containing the most important enactments, without feeling the propriety of opening, distinctly, his view of the subject, and stating the necessity in which the measure originated. He was quite sure, that, in another place to which a bill passed in that House had been sent, some of his majesty's ministers deemed it their duty to state the grounds on which the measure had been introduced, and

^*

agreed to. They did not think it was sufficient to say that the bill ought to be passed, merely because it came from the other House of parliament. Such a proceeding was unprecedented. It was the more necessary also, that explanation should be given in this case, because the bill as sent down here from the other House had been altered. All the noble lord had said on this point was, that transportation was too severe a penalty, and that banishment should be substituted; but he offered no reason to show that transportation was too severe, or that banishment should be preferred. Now, however, at this late period of the year, without stating any argument in support of its necessity, the noble lord called on them to recognize a principle, not only hostile to the liberties of the country, but totally new in its legislation; for whatever might have been the practice with respect to individuals, there was never before a case where a whole class of offences was, without discrimination, subjected to this species of punishment. In dividing on this question, his object was, to see whether a certain fair period of time could not be procured for properly considering this measure. With this view, he felt it to be an imperative duty to proceed to a division. Knowing that he was not acting from any wish to create an unnecessary delay, he implored gentlemen to support the motion of his noble friend, and not to carry a measure of this kind without consideration, because it came from the Treasury-bench. He hoped the House would pause before they hurried this measure forward at this time; since hurried it must be, if it were agreed to before the recess. There was no circumstance which pressed for an immediate decision: there was no reason adduced for not postponing its consideration to the period proposed by his noble friend. He did not wish to trouble the House farther; he did not want to protract the debate; but he should not discharge the duty he owed to the House and the country, if he did not use his best efforts to procure an opportunity for a solemn pause, in order that this measure should be thoroughly considered and properly understood.

appealed to the House, whether, in former discussions, a full opening had not been made, with respect to the nature and tendency of all the measures which had recently been brought before them; and amongst them, of that which was now immediately under consideration. If the present measure were as complicated in its details as the bill for preventing seditious assemblies was described to be, considerable inconvenience might have arisen had it been introduced without a regular opening. It was very unfortunate that ministers could not, by any line of conduct, please the gentlemen opposite. To-night they were not satisfied, because no opening speech had been delivered; although the nature of the measure rendered such a speech unnecessary. But, on a former occasion, when he stated that his hon. and learned friend would introduce the seditious meetings bill by a speech explanatory of its nature, that course was also deprecated by the gentlemen opposite, as an objectional proceeding. His hon. and learned friend, in moving the second reading of that bill, fully described its enactments, which were rather complicated; but the present bill required no such introduction, since it was by no means extensive in its detail. It was undoubtedly a bill of great importance, but still it was altogether a bill of principle, and he conceived that when he originally introduced the whole of the proposed measures to the House, he had sufficiently opened the principle on which this bill rested. The right hon. gentleman said, that this was not the same bill as that which was sent down from the Lords. He (lord Castlereagh) asserted that it was precisely the same bill, but he thought it would bring the House more fairly to the question, when he reminded them that he had apprised them on a former night that he would in the committee propose to commute transportation for banishment. Having on the occasion to which he had already alluded, so fully stated the scope and principle of the bill which was intended to be brought into the other House of Parliament, and observing that it was called for by the notoriety of the situation in which the country was placed, it did appear to him now a very extraordinary circumstance, that gentlemen should declare their ignorance of the nature of the measure. He really did expect that, according to the common course of business in that House, some of the gentlemen opposite would have stated what their objections against the bill were. The speech of the noble lord however (whom he always heard with pleasure), was directed against all the measures of government rather than against this particular measure. He had censured all that ministers had done, and all that they had proposed to do. The hon. member for Norwich had expressed his sentiments on a bill which had passed a few-years ago, had adverted to Mr. Carlile's trial, and indeed had touched on almost every subject, except that which was immediately before the House. When the debate took this sort of course, he felt with his hon. friends near him, that if he got up for the purpose of addressing the chair, he must either enter into those explanations of the bill which he had previously given, or digress into subjects not at all relevant to that before the House. When he saw such a phalanx of talent before him—when he knew the expectation which was naturally excited with respect to the debate of this evening, he was led to suppose, that some of those hon. gentlemen would endeavour to expose the inutility and impolicy of the bill; and he could assure them, that if any of them made a display of that kind, it would not go without an answer. But he could not see why he and his hon. friends should be called upon to combat air, or to fight where there was no appearance of an enemy. Now, when this night was fixed for the consideration of this bill, as he understood with the consent of all parties, it was certainly not fair to call on the House to stay in the middle of its proceedings until after the holidays. He asserted, looking to the situation of the country, that the House would not show a proper sensibility for the suppression of that horrible system which prevailed, if, having passed bills of less importance, they showed an unwillingness to accede to this. The right hon. gentleman might reproach ministers for having shown a comparative coldness to the true interests of the country, if after they had carried measures for regulating public meetings, and for other points of considerable importance at the present moment, they had refrained from checking that evil by which the morals of the people and the peace of the country were more likely to be shaken than by any other cause whatsoever. He stated originally, that he looked on the measures which were connected with the press, and which were intended to support the character and morals of the country, as of infinitely more importance to the safety of the state than any others that could be devised or imagined. If parliament separated with- out performing this great, sacred, and solemn duty to the country; if they separated without averting the monstrous danger which threatened the empire; if they separated without dispelling the disgrace which hung over their heads, by permitting blasphemous publications to be disseminated without restraint, they would ill discharge the duty which had devolved upon them. He decidedly protested against the doctrine, that ministers were bound to get up in that House, and make speeches, when no objections were offered against their measures. If he had not originally opened this subject with sufficient fulness, he certainly might now be called on for information; but as that charge could not be made against him, it lay on the other side of the House to state their objections; and when they did so, he felt confident that they would be refuted.

said, he had entered the House with expectations of a very reasonable kind— expectations which, reasonable as they were, he was sorry to perceive were likely to be disappointed. He had entered the House with the expectation that those who proposed an innovation in the criminal law of the country—an innovation affecting the most important of all the constitutional rights of Englishmen—a law against the freedom of the British press—would show some reason for such a proceeding, before they called upon the House to entertain the proposition; but the noble lord reversed the usual course of business, and argued, that gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side of the House should state their objections to the measure. To state their objections to the measure! To offer arguments against that in support of which 110 argument had been offered! In his opinion, every individual who agreed to this proposition without full explanation from those by whom it was introduced, would make himself a party to an outrage against the constitution—would become a party to a precedent of the most scandalous and reprehensible nature. Surely it could not be argued, that because the bill came from another place, it was therefore to be adopted here, on a simple proposition to that effect. It was a measure of the highest possible importance, and before the second reading was moved, its nature should have been fully described to the House. He hoped the circumstances would be recollected by the House and the country, under which it was brought forward by the noble lord. He hoped the introduction in such a manner of a new penalty for an undefined offence would not be forgotten. He hoped it would be remembered, that it was in the noble lord's administration that such an innovation, on such a subject, was avowedly tolerated. Let the House bear in mind that not one syllable of reason had been adduced for this innovation. When the bill came from the House of Lords, it was read the first time without opposition, in conformity with the usual courtesy which prevailed in such cases. It passed the first reading without discussion or observation, because no man, he thought, in his senses, could have supposed that the noble lord had forgotten ail the maxims of sound argument and just reasoning, and adopted the opinion, that the burthen of proof rested with those who opposed the measure. He (sir J. Mackintosh) always understood that such proof rested with the proposers of a law, and not with those who were called upon to consider it. The noble lord had told them, that in the case of the seditious meetings bill, he had found it necessary to make a separate statement. Was it, he asked, on account of the comparative importance of the bill, that he was obliged to do so? The noble lord would perhaps answer, that its intricacy in point of detail rendered such a proceeding necessary. The present bill, the noble lord might perhaps observe, only authorized new principles, new precedents, and new laws, in their penal legislation respecting the liberty of the press, and was therefore of so frivolous a nature as to render statement or explanation quite unnecessary! There was no shadow of ground for the distinction which the noble lord was solicitous to establish. The introduction of a new principle and a new law on general grounds, such as those alluded to by the noble lord, required that those grounds should be stated, as well as the facts which called for the introduction of a measure of complicated details. What did the noble lord state in his opening speech on a former occasion? He had listened to the noble lord with the deepest but most painful attention, and having done so, he would maintain that the noble lord had stated no ground whatever for this measure. The noble lord had stated indeed, that blasphemous libels had increased, and he had argued the necessity of putting them down by a severe penalty. But did the noble lord prove that necessity? Did he show that the inadequacy of the punishment awarded by the law as it at present stood, was the cause of this increase of blasphemous libels? Was it stated by any gentleman in the House that this was the case? It was not: no individual could make such a statement. He believed such a position to be absolutely untenable. Many things ought to be proved before the House agreed to such a measure. Ere they could wisely or honestly adopt it, the existence of the evil must be shown—the inadequacy of the existing law to meet it—the efficacy of the remedy, and its likelihood not to produce a greater evil than that which it was intended to remove. Not one of them was made out by the noble lord, and indeed it was impossible that they could be in a few cursory paragraphs of the noble lord's speech—a speech in which the noble lord, certainly with great ability had taken a review of the whole state of the country. It was impossible that the noble lord could, in part of that description, pay such attention to a question of this extent and importance as it manifestly demanded. What the noble lord had now said was quite beside the question. It was not a question whether a bill for putting down blasphemous libels was, or was not, of more importance than the others, which had been passed to meet particular offences. The other measures were introduced to check what was termed an urgent existing evil. If they were to be adopted at all (and he did not think they were called for) they must be adopted immediately; but that which was a measure of a preventive nature did not demand the same degree of hurry. It was of much more importance than the immediate passing of this bill, that the House should keep up to the accustomed forms of legislature—to those decencies and decorums which ought to attend the enactment of any penal law; and much more so, when new penalties were about to be directed against the liberty of the press. They ought not to lose sight of that gravity and calm deliberation which should be witnessed in every deliberative assembly, when new and heretofore unknown penalties were introduced for their adoption. He therefore, most unquestionably, would not enter into the discussion of this measure on the present occasion. He would consider himself highly blameable if he did; as that would be to assume that the mea- sure bore on its face its recommendation to the House. Time for due consideration ought to be allowed, and to obtain the necessary delay, he would vote for the motion of his noble friend who had proposed an adjournment of the question.

observed, that the remarks on the course of proceeding adopted by his majesty's ministers, which had fallen from gentlemen on the other side, were well deserving of notice. They appeared to him to have arisen from a misunderstanding of what had formerly taken place. His noble friend had, on a former occasion, distinctly stated the nature of the alterations intended to be proposed in the committee, and therefore he thought the imputation of his hon. and learned friend, was without foundation. Still less founded was the assertion which his hon. and learned friend had made, that his noble friend, or any other of his majesty's ministers, or indeed any gentleman on that (the ministerial) side of the House, had treated the present as a frivolous measure. Measures connected with the state of the press had been insisted on by his majesty's ministers, as those of the utmost importance, and therefore deserving the most serious consideration of the House before they became the law of the land. When he recollected the manner in which the noble lord opened the present debate, and the speeches which were delivered by gentlemen on the other side of the House, they appeared to him directed to any thing rather than the matter immediately under discussion. They had again restated to the House the question at Manchester, and a sweeping condemnation of all those measures produced by it. Some allusions had been made to himself in the course of the debate, intending to provoke him to address the House, which he was always unwilling to do, unless his duty rendered it absolutely necessary. He rose last night to answer certain remarks which were then thrown out, but was on that occasion prevented from stating his opinion. The law, they were told, as it at present stood, was sufficient for the punishment of libel; and observations were made relative to the conduct of an hon. and learned friend of his, to whom he had unworthily succeeded. He begged to state to the House the circumstances in which his hon. and learned friend was placed, particularly in the year 1818, when no prosecutions were commenced. The observations which came from the other side of the House on this subject were most extraordinary, and astonished him not a little. It was the first time, he believed, that gentlemen opposite had reproached the law officers of the Crown for not exercising their powers. Let the House consider the situation in which the law officers of the Crown were placed. If they wished to prosecute with effect, and at the proper time, motions were brought forward in parliament, charging them with having prosecuted too much. An hon. and learned predecessor of his, in the years 1810 and 1811, had selected a number of cases of libel, which he prosecuted with effect. A motion was in consequence made on the subject in parliament, and observations similar to those which he had since heard were not only directed against that individual, but the policy of prosecuting at all was strongly questioned. In 1817, when libels were disseminated through the country, attempts were made to put them down, not by the ex officio informations of the attorney-general, but by instituting prosecutions in inferior courts. Then a motion was made in parliament questioning the legality of the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, who maintained the right of those inferior courts to exercise a jurisdiction in cases of libel. Was it likely, after this, that magistrates would interfere to repress libels in their different districts, when a doubt was thus thrown on their authority? Prosecutions were afterwards instituted in the metropolis, and acquittal followed acquittal. Two remarkable cases of this kind occurred (those of Mr. Wooler). In one of them a verdict of acquittal was recorded; in the other the defendant was found guilty, but the verdict was set aside in consequence of an informality, all the jurymen not having been in court when the verdict was returned. He was ready to meet the hon. gentlemen opposite with respect to the trial and acquittal of Mr. Hone. What was the nature of the libels in that case—for he must so call them, as they had been so decided since the acquittal of that individual? In mentioning these circumstances, he by no means intended to impeach the verdict of the jury by which Mr. Hone was tried. It was said, as the ground of Mr. Hone's defence, that the primary object of those libels was, not to bring into contempt any part of the Litany, but to libel and scandalize certain persons named in them. He never heard those publications defended, but many attempts had been made to jus- tify the verdicts. Gentlemen on both sides of the House allowed that the parodies were improper. He would ask, why they were so considered? The reason evidently was, because gentlemen must have felt, that whatever the intention of the defendant was, the necessary effect of those publications must be, to bring into contempt those parts of the Litany which were parodied. Whatever was the intention of Mr. Hone, if such an effect were produced, he (Mr. Hone) was answerable for it. But no sooner came the first day of the sessions, though no amendment was moved to the Address, although it was concurred in by gentlemen opposite, still they one and all rose to state their opinion, that it was a cruel persecution of this individual, and that the attorney-general had exercised a most unwise discretion. They, however, admitted the impropriety of those publications. He was told at that time, that to prosecute them was a most dangerous system, because it tended to disseminate the poison more widely [Hear, hear, hear!]. One hon. gentleman had said to-night, that the Christian religion did not want the aid of the civil power for its support, as he (the attorney-general) had stated on the trial of Carlile. He admitted that it did not demand the aid of the civil power for the promulgation of its doctrines or the preservation of its tenets; but when publications were sent forth, such as those disseminated by Carlile, was it not necessary, for the protection of the lower orders, that those prosecutions should be carried on? Was not the prosecution of such an offender likely to repress the offence? But gentlemen on the other side of the House wished the law officers of the Crown to be tender of prosecuting libels; and it had even been declared, that the more foul the libel, the more dangerous the prosecution, because it gave a greater publicity, and sometimes excited commiseration for the party prosecuted. The case of Mr. Hone was quoted in support of this statement, and allusion was made to the lavish subscription which had been procured for the relief of that individual throughout the country. He did not mean to impute improper motives to any one; he would hazard the censure of the hon. member for Shrewsbury by declaring, that whatever might have been the motives of those who thus subscribed, the effect of their conduct was most prejudicial. What must be the effect on the country, where a man, who hap- pened to be acquitted for publishing pamphlets considered on all hands improper, confessedly of a mischievous nature, was immediately held up as a persecuted individual, and therefore worthy of public support. At the time to which he alluded, a prosecution was considered beneficial. He might almost say, that premiums were offered for prosecutions. His hon. and learned predecessor had actually received letters from individuals, calling on him to prosecute them. There were not only acquittals, but the persons acquitted were held up as martyrs. These circumstances were not very encouraging to those whose duty it was to prosecute; for the House would perceive that the right of the attorney-general to prosecute should be maturely considered before he proceeded. No prosecution ought to be instituted by him, unless he meant to carry it on with effect, and where he was not conscious in his own mind of the probability of a successful issue. The House would also agree with him, that there was, and perhaps there ought to be, a prejudice in the minds of jurymen, and of the public, against Crown prosecutions. An attorney-general would, under these circumstances, do wrong to launch into prosecutions for libel, without considering the nature of the libel, the temper of the times, and temper of the jury. There had been five acquittals within the walls of the courts of justice, as well as a subscription out of doors for persons who had been prosecuted for libel. Feeling, therefore, as an attorney-general must do, that he was likely to be called to an account in that House for the exercise of his power, his hon. and learned friend was completely justified in not proceeding without very great deliberation. Early in 1819, prosecutions were commenced against Carlile, not only for blasphemous publications, but for a seditious libel having the tendency to encourage people to act upon the principle of assassination. His hon. and learned predecessor having instituted those prosecutions, and finding also that others were instituted by a society in this town, who made it their business to look after offences of this kind, had a right to pause before he filed other informations, until the result of the pending prosecutions was known. He did not in consequence file any more informations, lest he might be accused of harassing individuals unnecessarily. It was impossible, from the press of business in the court of King's-bench, to bring on the trial until the month of October last, at which time his hon. and learned friend had retired from office. This delay was by no means unprecedented. In 1795, when a noble and learned lord (then Mr. Erskine) prosecuted Williams for publishing "The Age of Reason," he declined bringing the case to trial until a full special jury attended. He (the attorney-general), however, was determined to proceed, whether the number of special jurors who attended was great or small. The result was, that Carlile was convicted, and he had no doubt that that conviction had produced a useful effect. On his entrance into office, such was the number of libels which inundated the country, and the cheapness of the forms in which they were published, that, painful as the duty was, he had felt it necessary to prosecute, not only by ex officio informations, but also by another way, in the inferior courts; but if indictment were multiplied on indictment, if information were heaped upon information, it would have been impossible to meet all the cases of libel. They might as well think of instituting actions against all the persons who attended at the meeting at Manchester, or any other illegal meeting, if an hon. and learned friend of his would allow him so to call it. His hon. and learned friend had said, that this was only a preventive measure. Could he say that the placing an additional punishment on a particular offence known to exist, was mere matter of prevention? One object of the bill, he apprehended, was this—by affixing an accumulated punishment on an offender who had committed a second offence, at once to visit him for his past conduct, and to prevent a recurrence of it in future. What could be a greater offence against a society, constituted like our's, than an attempt, first, to overthrow the religion; and next, to subvert the government? By this bill, an endeavour was made to prevent the mischief, before it went to any great extent. It first enabled the Court before whom the party was tried, to seize the libellous publication, whether in his own hands or those of any other person. His hon. and learned friend had said, that no proof was given of the existence of mischief; but was it not clear in the case of Carlile, who, up to the very eve of his judgment, had continued to sell those blasphemous publications for which he was punished? This instance was ground enough for the enactment subjecting the libels, after convic- tion, to be seized by the order of the Court; and it was provided, that if a new trial should be granted, the property should be restored, society being protected in the mean time against the diffusion of the evil. Could any thing be more pernicious to society than the publication of those seditious and blasphemous libels with which the country had been deluged? It was said that this bill enacted a new punishment. That was not the case. In 1796 a bill was passed, by which the party convicted of the offences therein mentioned was subjected to banishment. Banishment was not so severe a punishment as transportation, because it enabled the the person on whom it was inflicted to select his own place of retreat, and saved him from being forcibly detained among felons. He trusted he had shown that an evil did exist, against which the House were called upon to furnish a preventive. This being the case, he apprehended that the provisions of this bill would have a tendency to repress that evil. It would operate to prevent a second offence, because when persons had committed a first, they would be more careful not to offend again. Whatever objections might be made to the details in the committee, he thought the public would not be satisfied unless that House should consent to pass this bill. His majesty's ministers did not wish to break in upon fair discussion, but it was necessary to provide a security against blasphemy and sedition; and, in framing this measure, it had been considered, that prevention was better than punishment.

rose to explain. He said he had been misunderstood. He intended to distinguish, and he thought he had distinguished prevention by previous restraint from prevention by punishment and example. His hon. and learned friend, had told them, that banishment was not a new punishment. He (sir J. Mackintosh) had merely stated, that it was a punishment not now existing as applicable to offences of the press.

said, that as allusion had been made to him, he thought it necessary to rise in order that he might state to the House the grounds on which he had objected to the prosecution of Mr. Hone. His objections to that prosecution arose from the circumstance of the hon. and learned gentleman who then held the office of attorney-general, having appealed from one jury to another, with the view of obtaining a conviction for a libel of the same nature. This perseverance accorded but little with the relaxation which followed it concerning cases of a much less equivocal nature. The objections which he and his hon. friends entertained against the present measure were, that it was wrong to bring in a new penal law, when the existing laws had not been previously tried. The hon. and learned gentleman had said, that prevention was better than punishment; but he (lord Althorp) contended, that the noble lord opposite and his colleagues had no right to impose fresh restrictions on the press at the present moment; when the sufficiency of the existing restrictions had not been ascertained.

, in explanation, defended the conduct of his hon. and learned predecessor in not pressing any more prosecutions immediately after the acquittals which had been alluded to.

said, that the hon. and learned gentleman had that night, although in a tone very different from that of his hon. and learned colleague on a former evening, brought forward a charge against those who contributed to the relief of Mr. Hone. He had hoped, that after what had passed in that House from time to time, respecting the prosecution of that individual, it would not have been necessary for him to say one word upon the subject. He had thought it had been clearly understood, that whatever might be the opinion with respect to the conduct of government in that prosecution, there could be but one feeling of disgust with respect to the parodies in question. One of the hon. and learned gentlemen opposite had thought proper on a former occasion to say that it was owing to those who expressed their disapprobation of the prosecution of Mr. Hone, and who had contributed to the subscription for that individual, that blasphemy and sedition had since gone unpunished. He (the marquis of Tavistock) must request the indulgence of the House, while he stated shortly what the motives of his conduct had been. Having seen others not only not prosecuted, but loaded with honours and pensions, after having published parodies of a similar nature, only that they were in favour of the government; and having seen in the case of Mr. Hone, that if the parodies had not been against his majesty's government, we should not probably have ever heard of them; having seen contrary to the spirit of our laws three prosecutions carried on by the attorney-general for the same offence; although Mr. Hone, after the acquittal on the first of them, had given a promise—a promise which he had since kept—that he would not republish the parodies, he (the marquis of Tavistock) thought it proper to mark his sense of the conduct of those proceedings, and he had no hesitation to add his admiration of the abilities of Mr. Hone in conducting his defence against all the power and talents which had been arrayed against him. As to the attempt to implicate him (the marquis of Tavistock) and those who had pursued the same course, in the charge of approving and extending the progress of blasphemy, it was too absurd to be maintained for a moment; although he confessed he felt some surprise at the course of argument which had been pursued by the hon. and learned gentleman as he had some recollection of the time when the hon. and learned gentleman was accustomed to treat similar topics in a very different tone. However objectionable the mode of political discussion by parody on the sacred writings unquestionably was, Mr. Hone could plead abundant precedents for it. He would appeal to a right hon. gentleman opposite, whether he had not in his former, perhaps he might call them his less prudent days, indulged in such a mode of expressing his feelings; and whether at the time he did so, he was not, nevertheless, capable of entertaining a just abhorrence of blasphemy and sedition.

observed, that he was so pointedly called upon by the speech of the noble lord and by that of the hon. member for Shrewsbury last night that he did not think he should discharge his duty to himself if he did not rise to offer an explanation of the language imputed to him. Three weeks had elapsed since he had made use of the expressions alluded to. They had occurred at the commencement of the debate on the present bills, and yet, strange to say, though the hon. member for Shrewsbury was present at the time (whether the noble lord was or was not he could not say), he had not ventured to bring forward the charge when what he (the solicitor general) had said was fresh in the recollection of the House, but had postponed doing so until an interval of three weeks had elapsed. He would dare any hon. member in the House, who was listening to him at the time to say, that there was the slightest ground for the charge. He never had said that the conduct of the gentlemen opposite, in Mr. Hone's case had given rise to all the sedition and blasphemy which had since flowed in upon the country. He never in his life had given a more guarded opinion than on the occasion in question, and he would defy any one to say that his expressions were not that, without censuring the motives of the persons who entered into a subscription for Mr. Hone, he was confident that such conduct had had the effect of holding out a hope of impunity to blasphemous and seditious libellers. That was his sentiment on that occasion, and he now deliberately repeated the same. He would ask the noble lord on what grounds did he bring charges against him (the Solicitor-general), for his former conduct? He would ask the hon. member for Shrewsbury on what ground did he charge him with inconsistency? He had never before the time of his entrance into that House belonged to any political society, or was in any way connected with politics, and even if he had intended to connect himself with any party, he confessed that during his short parliamentary experience he had seen nothing in the views, the policy or the conduct of the gentlemen opposite, to induce him, as a true friend of the constitution to join them. On a former night he stated what he stated now, and what could not be contradicted, that on the three trials of Mr. Hone, a judge, of whose talents and knowledge of English law he had the highest opinion, and who was distinguished for his independence of character, declared the publications to be profane libels; that the present chief justice of the King's-bench, who filled that situation with so much honour, declared that the publication produced on the trial at which he presided was a profane and impious libel; that another person was tried and found guilty for the publication of one of those libels; that another person suffered judgment to go by default for publishing one of those parodies, and that the court in passing sentence described it to be a profane and impious libel. With all these circumstances before his eyes, and relying upon the knowledge of the laws of this country possessed by the respectable individuals before mentioned, was it, he would ask, too much for him to say, that notwithstanding the verdict of the jury, he considered the publications profane and impious libels? When the question was afterwards brought before that House by a noble lord, and seconded by an hon. and learned individual now no more, for whose great talents he had always entertained the highest respect, and of whom no person could speak in any terms of approbation to which he would not subscribe, that hon. and learned individual then said that he did not mean to state that the publications themselves were undeserving of censure, but that the conduct of the attorney-general in the conduct of the prosecution was highly improper. In a month afterwards the hon. member far Norwich again brought the question before the House, and admitted that the publications were censurable, although he contended that they were not deserving of a criminal prosecution. This therefore went forth to the world, that though the judges of the land had declared these publications to be profane, and though the gentlemen in that House always arrayed in opposition to the ministers of the Crown, had allowed the publications to be censurable, yet they ought not to be visited by a prosecution. He would ask any man what effect could such a declaration have on the people, other than that extreme effect of encouragement to seditious libels? But that was not all. There was in a short time afterwards a meeting held for the avowed purpose of entering into a subscription for the man who was before pronounced by the judges of the land, as the publisher of profane and impious libels; at which meeting a worthy alderman member for the city of London, presided; and at which meeting an hon. baronet member for Westminster, was present; and at that meeting was Mr. Wooler allowed to make an inflammatory attack on the judge who presided at Mr. Hone's trial; whom he described as one who had in the course of the trial acted the part rather of a vindictive prosecutor than of an impartial judge of the land, and yet no dissent to such sentiments was offered at that meeting. On the contrary they were received with great approbation, and a subscription for the relief of Mr. Hone was immediately opened. When speaking of the influence which the conduct of gentlemen of the first rank and patriotism, who subscribed on that occasion, had on the people as it too much to say that it was impossible under such circumstances to expect a verdict of

§

guilty against persons prosecuted for a similar offence? He had nothing to answer to the arguments on the principle of the bill, because he thought they had been completely answered by his hon. and learned friend. He should now sit down, having supported the opinion which he had given on a former night, and having rebutted the unfounded charges which had been made against him in the course of the debate.

allowed that he never had heard that his hon. and learned friend was a member of any political society, or that he was connected with any political body. All that could be said was, perhaps, that his hon. and learned friend now entertained opinions different from those he had formerly expressed, respecting his present associates; but there was nothing wonderful in this; it was natural that we should like people better the more we became acquainted with them. The very apprehension of being thought inconsistent would excuse some warmth—a warmth which seemed to verify the old proverb, "That proselytes were generally enthusiasts." That it was not intended to discuss this bill was manifest, for the gentlemen on the other side had not advanced any argument in support of it; he had heard no indication of their sentiments, except a scoff or a laugh, which was not an argument. With respect to the particular question, whether or not there had been a due activity in the prosecution of libels, he must say that he did not think the reasons urged by the other side in defence of their declining to prosecute were of sufficient weight. He meant to say nothing unkind of individuals, for whom he felt great respect, and of the purity of whose motives there could be no question, but it was his duty to state his opinion freely. When he spoke of individuals in public stations, he must be understood as speaking of nothing but errors in judgment, of a relaxation in some cases, and too severe activity in others. He would, take up the conduct of the law officers of the Crown since the year 1811, and he would say he was one of those who thought that the activity exercised at that period called for animadversion. Every body knew, that in prosecuting for libel, persons might sometimes be convicted who were not in any way chargeable with moral guilt. He had been present on one occasion at the time to which he had just alluded, when twenty people were brought up for judgment, every one of whom was as little involved in any participation of the moral guilt of the offence of which they were convicted, as any hon. member of that House. Among them were several women who lived in distant parts of the country, and whose only connexion with the offence was, that having annuities on newspapers, their names as required by act of parliament, were lodged at the Stamp Office as joint proprietors of those papers. They all received sentence, not indeed a very severe one (they were fined 20l. a-piece); but still the prosecution of such persons argued an activity on the part of those who prosecuted them, which excited strong sensations, and not of approbation, in Westminster Hall. The next Attorney-general seemed to act on the principle that frequent prosecutions for libel did more harm than good, and he believed that in the course of four years there was but one prosecution, and that for a libel on one of the royal family. Then came, under a subsequent Attorney-general the prosecutions against Wooler. One of them was for a libel not of a very offensive nature, but one or two passages struck him as likely to produce a verdict. When the Attorney-general had opened his case, Mr. Wooler made a defence which exhibited a very extraordinary degree of talent: and, feeling all the respect that he did for the Attorney-general, he must say that he thought Mr. Wooler had greatly the advantage over him. The conviction of Mr. Wooler might be attributed rather to the mode of his defence, and the topics touched on by him, than to any arguments used by the Attorney-general. As an example of the mode of defence adopted by Mr. Wooler, he (Mr. Scarlett) would state, that Mr. Wooler, in his defence, said that the Bill of Rights was a bill of wrongs and insults; and avowed himself the follower of Paine's political doctrines. In fact, his own speech did more to overturn his own arguments than the speech of the Attorney-general. In the second case, the libel was a mere piece of pleasantry against some members of the administration, and Mr. Wooler conducted his defence in the same tone of pleasantry, observing that after the former prosecution, which he called a tragedy, this was a farce. The jury acquitted him, and he (Mr. Scarlett) thought they did right. For his own part, and he must be suppos- ed to have some experience on the subject, he believed there could not be a more fair, honourable, and intelligent tribunal in the world than a London jury. Then came the case of Mr. Hone; who was indicted for three libels; one a parody on the Litany, another a parody on the Catechism, and the third a parody on the Athanasian Creed. When Mr. Hone was brought up, the information was read at great length, and every count but the last charged him with an intent to revile the Liturgy. He (Mr. Scarlett) thought at the time that Mr. Hone would be acquitted; and he said so to a learned gentlemen who now filled with the greatest credit to himself the situation of a judge in the court of King's Bench—he meant Mr. Justice Richardson, who was then one of the counsel for the prosecution. His reason for so thinking, and he then stated it, was, that so many distinguished persons, bishops, deans, and ministers of state, in all times and ages, had published parodies, and he did not believe that twelve men could be found in the metropolis, who could, on their oaths, Conscientiously find a man guilty of blasphemy, for doing what had so frequently and by such persons been done before him. As he had foretold, Mr. Hone was acquitted. The second prosecution was for a parody on the Catechism; this was something worse; but Mr. Hone had produced in his defence, a parody called "The Freeholder's Catechism," "written by Dr. Arbuthnot., in the reign of queen Anne, but which by mistake he had attributed to Mr. Wilkes. It was in fact written by Dr. Arbuthnot, in favour of the government of that day, and was thought to be a very useful composition. Mr. Hone, was again acquitted. As to the third parody, on the Athanasian Creed, he (Mr. Scarlett) had no sooner read the record, than he asserted that he had no doubt of an acquittal. Indeed, a parody did not necessarily infer an intention to revile the thing parodied. How many parodies, for instance, had been published on Pope's Letter of Eloisa to Abelard? It was well known that Mr. Person was very fond of a parody on that poem; but who would impute to him or to the poem any wish to revile the poetical character of Mr. Pope? He was one of those who thought that these compositions ought not to be applauded. He did not think the present an irreligious age; if not so devout as former ages, it, however, paid the greatest attention to the outward forms and decorums of religion; and perhaps it was for this very reason that parodies, which appeared so innocent to our forefathers, were so shocking and offensive in our eyes. But a jury to whom it was put as Mr. Hone put it, whether they could think he had a design of reviling or degrading the Christian religion, by doing that which bishops and ministers of state had done before him, or whether they thought that his object was purely political, could not in their conscience convict him of the former offence; and as to the latter, the Attorney- general, though certainly not deficient in courage, had not ventured to appeal to the jury for a political verdict. If the acquittals of Wooler and Hone were the grounds on which the opinion was founded, that juries would not convict in those other cases of atrocious libel to which reference had been made, he (Mr. Scarlett) felt assured that this was a grievous mistake. He was convinced that not one of those aggravated libels could have been brought before any jury without a certainty of a verdict of guilty. As to what had been said by his hon. and learned friend on former occasions, of the policy of prosecuting libels, he conceived that much depended on the nature of each particular case. There were many cases, no doubt, where prosecution might do harm by giving publicity to a libel not likely to be otherwise circulated; but where a libel, and one, too, of a malignant nature, had already circulated very considerably, especially where it had been disseminated among schools, as was alleged to be the case at present, there nobody could deny that it would be highly useful to brand the libeller with a verdict of conviction; nobody, at least, could deny that such a person was a fit object against whom an Attorney-general might call in aid the operation of the laws. He would not impute motives to his majesty's ministers; but if it was their object to put down the press by the clamour of the House of Commons, they could not proceed in a way different from their present course. The cry was— "The laws won't do; juries won't convict; give us severer laws:" whereas the fact was, that the aid of the laws had not been invoked in those cases where juries would be sure to convict. He was not one of those who thought the power of filing ex-officio informations ought to be taken away from Attorney- generals; on the contrary, he thought it a power which if discreetly exercised, was a great benefit to the country. Nor had any objection been made to that power by his honourable friends; their view was simply this—that as it was a power which if indiscriminately applied, would be in many cases rigorously severe, it ought not to be pressed on ordinary or inadequate occasions; but if the country were really in that alarming state described by the Attorney-general, then why not bring some of the worst cases before a jury? It was a libel on juries to say that they would not convict in such cases. Why did government sleep throughout 1818, when they might have obtained convictions of libels unquestionably blasphemous and seditious? Was it necessary that such publications should be tolerated, to afford a pretext for the introduction of coercive measures and restrictions on the liberty of the subject? He was convinced that nothing more than ordinary attention was necessary to procure conviction according to the present laws, and that ministers were not entitled to demand any additional restrictive laws until the present laws failed to bring delinquents to punishment.

, adverting to the assertion of the hon. and learned gentleman who had just sat down, that no argument had been offered in support of this measure, observed, that no argument had been advanced against it. He would give a reason why he should most conscientiously vote for the bill. It had two objects—one to seize libels, and the other to send out of the country those who persisted in vilifying the civil and religious institutions. With respect to the parodies published by Mr. Hone, the House could not be unaware of their mischievous tendency. The impression against them would however, he believed, be still stronger, if the mode of their distribution were fully made known, for that would naturally increase the alarm which the currency of such publications was calculated to produce in every religious, considerate mind.—Where would the House suppose he first saw these parodies? It had pleased God to bless hint with a large family and he actually found one of these profane and impious libels in the nursery of his children! He must, however, do justice to the young folks; who said that the jokes were very good; but very shocking. Parliament would neglect a very material duty if it did not take measures to guard the public against the pollution of such prophane and impious productions. With that view, then, he would vote for the first part of this bill, and he would also vote for the second part, because although a sincere admirer of civil and religious liberty, he thought that those who after one conviction could not refrain from a second attempt to destroy the religion and government of their country, ought to be sent out of it.