, after stating that a convict named Dennis M'Hue, who had been banished under the Insurrection Act, had left behind him property in the Savings-bank at Sidney, to the amount of 100l. which his widow had been unable to recover, moved, "That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, praying that he would be graciously pleased to order that there be laid before the House a copy of the depositions and other proceedings against Dennis M'Hue, a prisoner of the Crown in New South Wales, and any correspondence which had taken place on the subject of his removal, with the return made to Government of his death."

took the opportunity, in consequence of what had occurred in the House yesterday on the subject of New South Wales, of saying, that the opinion which he had formed of General Darling, was founded, not on the case to which his hon. friend, the member for Clare, had just called the attention of the House, nor on the case of the petitioner of yesterday, but on what appeared to be the general tenour of his conduct. From every quarter he had heard of charges against him. Indeed, he submitted, whether the bare fact that a Governor of a colony found it necessary to have recourse to prosecutions for libel against himself, the unfortunate libeller being tried by a Jury of seven officers, selected by the Adjutant, ought not to open the eyes of the right hon. Gentleman, and convince him that there was something not right, which it was attempted to stifle? These pretended libels were read in the House the other evening, and he was persuaded that not even the Attorney General of this country, with all his soreness on the subject, would consider them deserving of notice. When he saw General Darling, however, prosecuting for libel every Newspaper in the colony, it was, in his opinion, at least prima facie evidence that there was something wrong in his conduct. The right hon. Gentleman might refuse to call the Governor back to answer for his conduct; but, in the next Parliament, it would be indispensable to bring the subject again under the consideration of the House. He hoped, however, that care would be taken to retain the individual whose petition was received yesterday, that he might be a witness on the case, and not be sent out of the way, to some distant settlement, as his evidence must be of considerable importance. He had been requested by his hon. friend who presented the petition yesterday, to state, that the petitioner had considered it unnecessary to mention any of the circumstances which had occurred at Chatham, and which had occasioned his imprisonment. The Serjeant there had ordered him to receive some coffee instead of soup; he refused, as it was contrary to the regulations of the army, and, because he would not pay for the coffee, he was declared guilty of what was termed insubordination, and remained in the guard-house nine weeks, waiting for the decision on his case of the Commander-in-chief, when he was condemned to two months imprisonment and hard labour; a sentence, however, which was not carried into execution, as it was declared to be contrary to law. It was singular that the officer who took the most active part against the petitioner at Chatham was Captain Gray, who was Adjutant at Sidney when the petitioner's original punishment took place. There might be nothing in this coincidence, but the unfortunate petitioner found it difficult to separate the two circumstances. He would now advert to the Address which had been presented in the colony to General Darling, a copy of which he held in his hand. It was signed by 115 persons out of a population of 30,000. That Address was prepared by the Colonial Secretary, and was carried round privately for signatures. If General Darling had been conscious that his government deserved approbation, he would have called a public meeting, such as that in February last, when 400 or 500 persons assembled to petition for an extension of their rights. Of the 115 persons who had signed the Address, forty-five were Magistrates (out of 150 in the colony); twenty-two were persons who had not been six months in the colony; twenty were persons who were petitioners for lands and other benefits at the disposal of the Governor. Such was the way in which this Address had been got up. He was prepared to prove, that an officer who had refused to sign it had been since sent home. In fact, the power which the Governor possessed in the colony was much greater than that of the King in England. He could grant 1,000 or 2,000 acres in any favourable spot. He could grant to any individual as many servants as he chose. He could create Magistrates. He could give importance to any one. With so much influence, the wonder was, that there were so few signatures to the Address. He understood that several of those who had signed the Address had since received grants of land. If the right hon. Gentleman opposite would look at the list of grants, and then at the list of the signatures to the Address, he would find among the latter the names of several persons who had recently arrived in the colony, and who had since received grants of land. It was a singular thing, that out of 115 persons who had signed an Address, declaring that the Governor had been traduced by the Press, ninety-six took in the identical papers, the conductors of which, they declared had behaved so extremely ill. The means which the Governor had resorted to for protecting his character were such as must destroy every paper in the Colony. In the next Session he hoped that the subject would be brought fairly forward, and that justice would be done to the colony. If Governor Darling-should be able to disprove all the charges preferred against him, he should be most ready to allow that he had been deceived. He was at present, however, satisfied that such was not the case, and that the interests of the colony of New South Wales required the removal of the Governor, and the placing of the colony under the influence of the English laws, so that no man should be allowed to promulgate what law he pleased.

begged, in justice to himself, to state some facts, which he believed were more deserving of credit than those alleged by the hon. member for Aberdeen; and which he was prepared to prove, either at the bar or in a committee. He could assure the House, on good authority, that the Address which had been presented to General Darling was the spontaneous feeling of the individuals who signed it. It was signed by 115 persons, none of whom were connected with Government, or held any office under Government. Of the Legislative Council, consisting of ten members, five had signed the Address; but they had no situation under Government. The person who first signed the Address had signed the petition for a Legislative Assembly in New South Wales; he was not in the Legislative Council, and considered that he had been ill-used in the colony. There were others who thought themselves aggrieved persons, but who had, nevertheless, put their names to this paper, declaring that they did not consider that the conduct of General Darling had been in any respect illegal, unjust, or unnecessary. Among the earliest signatures were the names Robert Campbell and Jones—persons of the highest respectability. It was said by an hon. Gentleman yesterday, that the present Governor had instituted more prosecutions for libel than any of his predecessors. The fact, however, was, that previous to the government of Admiral Brisbane, there was no free press in the Colony; and previous to Governor Darling, only one Government Gazette; so that prosecutions for libel were impossible. Whether Governor Darling had been too strict or arbitrary he could not say, but he knew that the Address in question had been signed by the most respectable merchants, traders, and land holders in New South Wales, and that it had not been obtained in an underhand manner.

said, that the hon. member for Aberdeen stated the information, which he had probably derived from some of the most violent and prejudiced persons in the colony, as if he had received it from the most authentic sources. That hon. Member, as well as the hon. member for Clare, had talked of the danger of an abuse of power in the colonies; but might there not also be abuse of power by a Member of that House? Might not an hon. Member of that House throw out imputations upon a public officer, derived from sources unworthy of credit, but which received importance from the distinguished station of the person who uttered them? He confessed that he could hardly conceive a more indiscreet use of the privilege of speech, conceded to the Members of Parliament; especially where the individual charged was at such a distance that he had no means of making an immediate reply. The hon. member for Aberdeen had, for instance, read the statement of the soldier himself, as if it could be considered authentic. As to the Address which had been alluded to, he (Sir George Murray) had no doubt of the respectability of the individuals by whom it had been signed; but it was not for him to be influenced by any consideration of that nature; by the evidence, and by the facts alone, must he be guided. At present, he felt perfect confidence in the Governor; but if, on strict investigation, it should appear that his conduct had been improper, he would certainly not defend it. But he must strongly object to such statements as that which had been made by the hon. member for Aberdeen. It had been imputed as a crime to General Darling that the Juries in New South Wales were military; but that was in conformity, to the regulations of the Act of Parliament.

said, he was willing to produce evidence at the bar in proof of the charge.

said, that to produce the evidence of the accused, in proof of his own charge, was not what he called satisfactory proof.

said, he would also produce other witnesses to substantiate the charge.

knew General Darling to be a man of mild temper and humane conduct, and he could not, consequently believe him guilty of the conduct imputed to him.

Address agreed to.

stated, it was not his intention to proceed further with this Bill during the present Session. He felt deep regret at being-obliged to give it up, not from his private disappointment, but from the great injury which would be inflicted on the manufacturing districts by the postponement of the measure, particularly as it had been supported by a great number of leading Members on both sides of the House. He then moved that the House resolve itself into a committee on this question that day month.

concurred in the feeling of regret that the measure must necessarily be postponed, and expressed his determination to support it next Session. He was friendly to the principle of non-interference between master and workmen, but he did not consider this Bill an exception to that principle.

did not think the principle of the Bill was opposed to the sound doctrines of commercial intercourse.

Motion agreed to.

said,—Sir, before this question is put, I wish to draw the attention of the House to a matter of great importance. The subject I allude to is that of a general reduction of all salaries, and this is more particularly necessary in consequence of what happened a few days ago, when the moderate, and, I might say, too liberal proposition of my hon. friend, the member for Aberdeen, to reduce the salaries of the Judges to only double what they were in 1792, was rejected by a majority of 3 to 1. There were on that occasion only 11 out of 658 Members of this House who voted in favour of the proposition, and of the 37 who voted for the continuance of the present high salaries of the Judges, a number equal to the minority belonged to the learned profession, out of which Judges are selected. Yet it has been generally supposed, that a Parliament, when under sentence of death, has more compassion towards the people than at other times, and that the concern for the public good of a dying Parliament, like the music of the swan, goes on increasing in proportion to the approach of death. But, Sir, it will appear, on the contrary, that there is no intention to reduce salaries; it seems that every thing else is to come down, such as profits from trade, land-rents, and the prices of labour—but salaries to public officers are to be maintained at the war standard. But will the country bear this? will it endure that public men shall augment the burthens of the country in a proportion nearly double, by augmenting their own salaries, and rendering themselves the only parties exempt from the distress and the privation which all others suffer? I trust, that at the next election a pledge will be exacted from every Member on a subject of such vast importance to the country. I trust, this House will bear in mind the Minister's assertion, that the wages of labour in England are to accommodate themselves to the prices of the continent. Since this is the principle by which we are to be governed, why not apply it to the State labourers? How can they in common honesty or decency help themselves (for with such a House of Commons as this they have only to help themselves) to salaries kept up to the highest rate of prices at the time of the war, while they have lowered all wages except their own. This, Sir, I say is the natural consequence of recruiting the Cabinet out of counting-houses and shops. It would not have been endured before the monied interest had reached its present ascendancy. During the last four years I have been endeavouring to impress upon the House the necessity of reducing the salaries of public officers. Has the House done this? If we refer to the reports on the Table, we shall see the whole army of official servants now receiving the same, or nearly the same, amount of pay as during the continental war, when prices were forty, fifty, and sixty per cent higher than they are at present. I wish to hear what reduction of salaries in conformity with the altered circumstances of those whose labour pays them, any member of Government will propose? At present I hear of no instance of the kind save that of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, who, following the illustrious example set by Lord Camden, has given up part of his emoluments. Yes, I have heard of another instance, that of the cats at Duncannon Fort being put upon half allowance, in order, I suppose, to propitiate the rats. I wish Government would do the same by their rats as they do by their cats, and that would satisfy me. I recollect the only answer I got on this point, in the year 1827, was from the right hon. member for Liverpool, who said, that "if it was thought that public officers received too much,"—were they to suffer a reduction? No, but that—"a tax ought to be levied on all property generally." Here was a servant settling the amount of his own wages, and when his master (ruined, observe, by his counsels) wishes to economise, he cannot consent to curtail his wages unless his master consents to a further destruction of his property.

The Bill was passed.

rose, to put a question to the hon. and learned Gentleman. He had understood that the clemency of the Crown had been extended to various capital offenders under sentence. He thought there were some minor offenders to whom mercy might also be advantageously extended, without any detriment to the administration of justice. He wished to know whether a pardon was likely to be granted to Mr. Alexander, who was in confinement for libels published in the Morning Journal newspaper? He really thought that when murderers were pardoned, Mr. Alexander might well become an object of clemency.

said, he had no concern with the subject alluded to by the hon. Member, but was still of opinion that the course pursued towards Mr. Alexander was correct.

said, that he would not be a party to bringing into discussion the most valuable prerogative which the Crown possessed—he meant the prerogative of mercy. The hon. Member had stated, that the Royal clemency had recently been extended to criminals convicted of murder. He (Sir R. Peel) could assure the hon. Member that no such extension of the Royal clemency had taken place.

said, that there had been an extension of it to several persons convicted of capital crimes, and among that number he supposed that there had been some guilty of murder.

, in reply, stated, that he supposed that the hon. Member must be alluding to what had occurred on the Recorder's list of convicted criminals being laid before his Majesty. A report of the cases of criminals convicted at the Old Bailey was, as the House well knew, periodically laid before his Majesty; and on the last occasion, it so happened, that the report was made immediately after his Majesty's first accession to the Throne, and Ministers did not see any reason to advise his Majesty to carry the sentence of the law into execution. Ministers would, however, have acted very improperly if they had advised his Majesty on account of his accession to remit the sentence of the Court in any case where it was expedient it should be carried into execution. The hon. Member was not to suppose that his Majesty would have abstained from letting the law take its course if the interests of justice had at all demanded it.

Bill read a third time.

The Attorney General proposed an Amendment to increase the amount of re-cognizances.

said, that as the hon. and learned Gentleman had moved his Amendment without a word of explanation, and with a brevity which, though it might be very satisfactory to the hon. and learned Gentleman, was not very decorous to the House, he would not enter into a repetition of the arguments which he had formerly used, because, as the House had not heard a single argument to change the opinion which it had expressed on a former evening, he could not suppose that it would consent to impose fresh burthens on the Press at a time at which it was professing to relieve it.

wished to know what the Amendment was on which he had to vote. For his own part, he had not heard, and therefore was unable to comprehend it.

said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had originally proposed, by a clause in this Bill, that the recognizances entered into by the proprietors of newspapers should be increased by an additional 100l. He (Lord Morpeth) had moved in the committee that that clause should be expunged, and his motion was carried. The hon. and learned Gentleman was now, after the decision of the committee against him, proposing that his original clause should be restored.

stated, that the manner in which the hon. and learned Gentleman had introduced this Amendment was of a piece with his whole official conduct. The hon. and learned Gentleman was the last man to whom he would intrust any additional power which might be converted into an engine of oppression towards the Press. He thought that it was advisable for him to make that statement in his place in Parliament. He hoped that other Members, who thought like him on this subject, would imitate his example; for he could assure them, that in the country, the Whigs generally were sharing much of the unpopularity of the Whig Attorney General.

said, that upon this occasion he should waive all discussion of his own general conduct, and should pass over without notice the unlooked-for indignation with which the noble Lord had just attacked him. Sorry as he might be for having excited it, he had at least the consolation of knowing that he had done nothing which could justify it. In reflecting upon his conduct towards the Press since he had been Attorney General, he found no reason to repent, and no wish to retract, any thing which he had done. With all the respect which he felt for the noble Lord opposite, he must still say, that he (the Attorney General) was not responsible to him for his conduct. If the noble Lord, or if any other individual, would bring his conduct fairly before the consideration of Parliament, he would be ready to meet and answer the attack. It was not, however, becoming hon. Members to call on him, without previous notice, to refute opinions which they might entertain respecting his official conduct, especially as he had heard nothing which could lead him to wish that conduct altered even from those whose opinions he regretted to find in opposition to his own. He assured hon. Members that it was not from any want of respect towards the House that he had proposed his Amendment without explanation. He conceived that it was already sufficiently well known, and he conjectured from the large attendance of Members that it was equally well known, that he intended to take the sense of the House upon it. The history of the measure was shortly this:—his object was, to restore the Bill to the form in which he had originally introduced it into the House. He had not been prepared to expect that a division would have taken place upon it in the committee. His noble friend opposite (Lord Morpeth) had told him that he was averse to the clause in question; but when his noble friend made that representation to him, he had understood that representation, though he was certain that the noble Lord had no wish to mislead him, to signify that it was not his intention to divide the House upon it. In a very small House, however, a division had taken place upon it. There was that evening a larger attendance of Members present, and he was desirous of knowing whether the House was of opinion that the amendment which had been agreed to on the former evening should still remain part of the Bill. He had not added anything to the Bill as it stood originally; he was only attempting to bring it back to its first condition. It was understood by the noble Lord opposite,—for he had himself made the communication to the noble Lord,—that he would upon the present evening make such an attempt. The only object which he had in view in proposing his present Amendment was, to give to private individuals an opportunity of recovering the damages awarded to them by courts of law for libels, which they had at present no means of obtaining. He was of opinion that the scape-goat, who was put in at the Stamp-office, and who frequently was not able to pay either damages or costs, would not be allowed to go scot-free, as he often did at present, and therefore it was, that he proposed a measure, by which the real proprietors would be made liable to the inconvenience of paying damages for the slanders which their capital sent into the world. He hoped that he was not amenable to the censure of the noble Lord for wishing to protect individuals from the injury which was often done them by the invention of the most wanton falsehoods. That such falsehoods were often wantonly invented, no man could doubt. He had read recently two or three debates, as they were called, of that House, which were mere matters of invention, made for the purpose of attacking either the speakers or those against whom the speeches purported to be spoken. The private slander of the Press had not met with that reprehension which, in his opinion, it merited. He had taken the liberty of mentioning on a former evening the case of "The Age" newspaper. The person formerly entered as proprietor of that journal was now in prison, in consequence of the many verdicts for damages which had been found against him. It turned out that he was not the person receiving the profits of the paper—a statement which he had seen under the hand-writing of the individual himself. In the meantime he lived comfortably in gaol, and the real proprietors of the paper paid neither damages nor costs. His object was, to put a stop to such a system, and to make those who received the profits pay the punishment of the slanders which they propagated.

said, that he would shortly state the reasons why he voted for the proposition of the noble Lord near him, and not for the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. In so doing, he wished not to refer to any extraneous topics, but to confine himself entirely to the Bill then before the-House. He acquitted the hon. and learned Gentleman of having any other design than that which he had avowed. He should, therefore, have had no objection to vote for his Amendment, if he could have imagined that the hon. and learned Gentleman's object would be more effectually accomplished by it than it would be by the Bill in its present shape. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, he should give to individuals who might be injured by libels a better opportunity of recovering the costs which courts of justice might award them. Now, as he read this Bill, they would be able to recover those damages already; for the Bill already required that a security of 300l. should be given, and the Amendment only increased that security to 400l. To him, it appeared, that 300Z. was ample security for any costs which might be awarded. To call for larger security was only inflicting an additional hardship on the Press, without giving any additional advantage to the public.

was glad that he at length knew the nature of the Amendment. He could not, however, agree to vote for the retention of the words which the Attorney General proposed to continue in the Bill. His vote must be against them, not merely for the reasons given by his hon. friend, the member for Dover, but also for this additional reason—that they went much further than many hon. Gentlemen supposed. The Amendment more than doubled the existing securities. A person who intended to start a newspaper, was called upon at present to enter into recognizances of 300l. if he started it in London; of 200l. if he started it in the country. Lord Castlereagh had originally fixed the amount of the recognizances at 500l., but had afterwards reduced it to 300l., as any body might see by referring to the Parliamentary History. Now the hon. and learned Gentleman, by calling upon individuals to find two sureties to join him in a bond of 400l., actually called upon him to find security for 800l.

interrupted the noble Lord to observe, that though, in a joint bond for 400l. given by two persons, each party was liable to pay the sum in case the other party failed to pay his proportion, it was not fair to say that the security given was for 800l.

reiterated his statement, and contended further, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had not mentioned one fact, nor adduced one argument, to show that the increase of the recognizances was necessary. The noble Lord then referred to a speech delivered in 1819, against the Newspaper Stamp Duties Bill, by an hon. Member (the Paymaster General) whom he then saw on the Ministerial benches. He trusted that the friends of the Press would have the benefit of that hon. Member's vote on the present evening; for he had formerly asked whether that bill was not a control upon the liberty of the Press, and whether there was any necessity for making such an alteration as it was calculated to make in the Constitution of the country. He (Lord Howick) contended, that it had not been proved that any alteration in the law of the Press was at present necessary. The recent prosecutions against Mr. Alexander, which proved that the law was at present able to overwhelm any individual against whom its terrors were invoked, proved also that it was not necessary to aggravate the severity of the existing law. Above all, he saw no reason why the power of the Government to control the Press should be increased at the present moment.

said, that if the Amendment of the Attorney General should be carried, persons who intended to set up new newspapers would be compelled to enter into larger recognizances than those which were demanded from the proprietors of old newspapers. This, he thought, was unfair, and he had stated his reasons why on a former occasion. The old newspapers had power, protection, and patronage—advantages which no newspaper at its first commencement could possibly possess. The property of some established newspapers had been sold for 100,000l.; to them these recognizances might be nothing, but to the proprietors of a new journal, who had to provide a capital of 30,000l. or 40,000l to start it, every additional 100l. for which they had to provide was a matter of difficulty. He could not see any just reason why the proprietor of a new journal should be liable to heavier recognizances than the proprietors of the old ones. If any favour ought to be shown to either, he thought that it should be shown to the party which was entering upon a new speculation.

said, he should vote for the clause which had been introduced into the Bill by the noble Lord. In voting against the Amendment of his hon. and learned friend, he begged leave to have it distinctly understood, that he was not actuated by the motive avowed by the noble Lord near him (Lord Normanby).

The House divided—For the Amendment 68; Against it 47—Majority 21.

The Attorney General then proposed the other verbal Amendment necessary to complete his clause.

expressed a doubt whether, as the Amendment was carried, the country was in any better situation, as far as this bill was concerned, than it was before. His reason for entertaining such a doubt was, that even while the law inflicting banishment for a second conviction for libel stood upon the Statute-book, every body knew that it never would be carried into execution, The clause, therefore, which the Attorney General had introduced into this Bill, was an additional manacle upon the Press. He conceived it to be very hard on those who had to acquire their subsistence by their intellectual attainments, that they should be punished in their pockets before they had shown any disposition to commit an offence. It was quite time enough to punish crime when it occurred. This new clause would not render those who had embarked a large capital in newspapers better: it would only throw obstacles in the way of those who wished to commence them with a limited capital. Would a great and widely-circulated paper like "The Times" care one straw about furnishing this additional security of 100l.? Not at all. This clause, therefore, would have no effect on the large capitalists, whatever it might have upon the small. Indeed, the only effect which it was certain to produce was, to place the Attorney General and the rest of the King's Government in a point of view not so good as that in which they would otherwise stand. In short, it would irritate many; but it would not restrain a single individual who was likely to be dangerous. He did not wish to forget what the Attorney General had attempted upon the subject; if the hon. and learned Gentleman had not done all that might be wished, he had at least done something. There were, however, other parts of the law affecting the Press, besides that now under discussion, against which he was desirous to enter his protest, as they also affected the small capitalists. He found by a return which had recently been placed upon the Table, that 147 prosecutions had recently been instituted by order of that department of the Stamp Office, which took notice of the pamphlet stamps. Those prosecutions were authorizedby a law which was quite as injurious to the small capitalists as the Newspaper Stamp Duties Acts. If this Bill were intended as a boon, it would not be received as such by the country, for it was only calculated to irritate, without having any power to restrain those who conducted the Press of the country.

said, he was sorry that the early part of this discussion had been mixed up with reflections of a personal nature on his hon. and learned friend, the Attorney General, for he was certain that this measure was one which in the opinion of the well-meaning part of the community would reflect credit upon his hon. and learned friend. Yes, he repeated the expression, it would reflect credit on his hon. and learned friend. Those Gentlemen who supposed that his hon. and learned friend was courting the favour of either the Press or the public in bringing this Bill forward, might think that his hon. and learned friend would fail in securing it. But that was not the object of his hon. and learned friend. His hon. and learned friend wanted to do what was just and right, being indifferent, in the first instance, to popular applause, and being fully satisfied that the time would at last come when his motives would be properly appreciated. He had always understood, that the complaints against the law affecting the Press of this country were in their nature twofold. The first complaint he understood to be this,—that the punishment of banishment for the second conviction for libel was grievous and too severe; that its continuance on the Statute-book was a reflection upon the law itself; and that, in spite of its severity, it was not valid to restrain from offence, as nobody ever thought of enforcing it, seeing that if ever it were enforced, it would be so much superior to the offence committed as to constitute a positive act of injustice to the individual on whom it might be inflicted. His hon. and learned friend had endeavoured to meet that complaint by repealing the punishment of banishment altogether, for offences of the Press. The next complaint was directed against the difficulty which there was, under the existing law, of restraining the licentiousness of the Press, and punishing its calum- nies upon private individuals. Now, however anxious Gentlemen on the other side might be to defend the liberty of the Press, could any one of them deny, that of late the Press had evinced a prurient desire to examine into the conduct and character of private individuals, and particularly of females, who never ought to be needlessly dragged from retirement into public? Ought not the law to provide a remedy for such a mischief? Fictitious characters had their names entered at the Stamp Office, and thus females were left without the protection to which they were entitled, and could gain no redress from the parties who had endeavoured to inflict the severest injuries on their characters and feelings. But, said the hon. member for Westminster,—"'The Times' neswspaper will not care for this additional security." "The Times" newspaper, and journals of the same high character, had no occasion to mind it, for papers of such distinguished character never indulged in calumnious attacks on private individuals. The high character which papers like "The Times," had to support, was a security far stronger than any pecuniary security which the Legislature could devise, that they would not disgrace their columns by the insertion of such slanders on individuals as every Member that heard him must have seen elsewhere, and as every Gentleman amongst them on seeing must have reprobated. Though individuals moving in the same rank with those whom he then had the honour of addressing might despise such slanders, and think them too contemptible for notice, there were others, who, from their situations in life, could not bring themselves to the same state of feeling, and who might receive deep and lasting injury, if they permitted them to pass unreproved. Admitting it to be true that the papers conducted by proprietors whose means were small, and capital limited, were the papers which his hon. and learned friend's Bill would most affect, was it not, he would ask, from journals of that description that these malicious and injurious calumnies most frequently proceeded? Whether it would be received by the country as a boon or not, he could not tell: but he looked upon it as an improvement in the law of libel, as it diminished the undue severity against political libels, and increased the securities by which the public ought to be protected, Against private libels.

said, that although he was one of those who were willing to receive this Bill as a boon, inasmuch as it removed from the Statute-book one of the most disgraceful and odious laws which it contained, still he could not help observing that it would have been more satisfactory to him had this Bill, repealing the punishment of banishment, been unaccompanied by the injurious clause which had just been restored to it. As allusion had been made in the course of the discussion to the case of the editor of "The Morning Journal," he would take that opportunity of stating, that he for one could not regret that that person had not been made the subject of a recommendation to his Majesty's mercy. The libels which he had published were of the most malignant and atrocious nature, and the propagation of slander against individual character ought never to be countenanced. He had, therefore, little sympathy with Mr. Alexander's libels, and if he had little sympathy with his libels, he had still less for the defence which he had had the hardihood to set up for one of them in open Court. A defence that was founded upon perjury, removed from his bosom all sympathy for the sufferings occasioned by the just sentence passed by the Court upon the individual who could be base enough to employ it.

said, that he should always regret that the last Act of this Parliament should be an Act calculated to infringe the liberty of the Press. It was his opinion that the prosecutions which the present Ministry had instituted against the Press, had done them more injury in public estimation than any other measure which they had adopted. Although he differed from the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite as to the policy of this measure, he entertained no doubt that the hon. and learned Gentleman thought it would be of all the use which he had stated in repressing the circulation of private libels. His clause was not intended, according to the hon. and learned Gentleman's own statement, as a check upon the discussion of political topics. If, therefore, the hon. and learned Gentleman was sincere, he could have no objection to confine the increased security which he demanded from the Press to the claims of individuals injured by private libels. Would he so limit his clause?—would he add to it these words—"that the recognizances thus entered into are only to be estreated in case of conviction for libels on private individuals?" He put this question to the hon. and learned Gentleman as a test of his sincerity. For his own part, he thought such security uncalled for: he had himself always despised the worst efforts of slanderers, and so long as they kept their hands off him, people might write what they chose about him; for if his own character did not place him above the reach of their malice, the protection of the law would afford him but little benefit.

said, he had been induced to move the repeal of the banishment clause, because it had been supposed, perhaps not improperly, that it might be perverted to party purposes. He was quite conscious of the spirit in which many of the observations made that evening had been framed. An Attorney General was hardly ever popular. Of course no person would omit any opportunity of bringing him into contempt: he had been subjected to attacks, but he looked upon them with unruffled feelings. This, however, he begged to be understood,—that there had been no attempt to cajole on his part, as had been stated on a former evening. He had wished to do away with a punishment which he conceived to be injudicious, and of no benefit to the public. With respect to that part of the Bill which was objected to, he begged to state a circumstance of not uncommon occurrence. The responsible agent of a newspaper had a verdict against him of 250l. for libel: not a farthing of this sum could be obtained. Was it not desirable that some remedy should be applied to meet a case of this nature? That remedy was to be found in the clause which he proposed. It unfortunately was but too notorious that newspapers had been established with no other object at the beginning than the fabrication of private libels, and catering to the depraved taste of the public, which was found to be a source of great profit. It would be a vain effort to attempt to pass a law to prevent the public from taking pleasure in perusing libels. There was a natural inclination for this species of amusement. In that House it was found that a personal attack was far more interesting to the majority of the Members than a well-conducted debate on a financial topic, or any other measure of national interest. It was perfectly well known that newspapers had been established on the principle, exclusively, of at- tacking private character, without any party feeling whatever: he did not wish to mention names,—but he must again refer to the paper called " The Age," in illustration of this statement. That paper had commenced on the principle of attacking private character, without any distinction of persons or rank, or even that of sex. In conclusion, he begged the House to believe, that though he might be mistaken in judgment as to the effect of the measures he proposed, he was as sincere a friend to the liberty of the Press as any hon. Member he was now addressing.

complained, that the libel law was indefinite. It had been declared a libel to state that a noble Earl was a "sheep-feeder from Cambridge." On another occasion it had been declared a libel to say that an Irish Judge was a "stout-built special pleader." This was a point upon which he thought the law of libel required altering. In the case which had been referred to, of the libels on the Lord Chancellor, the defendant would have been equally criminal in publishing the truth of a corrupt Lord Chancellor, as he was in publishing a falsehood of a pure Lord Chancellor.

On the question that the Bill do pass,

begged to observe, that he had nothing to do with the motives which influenced the Attorney General in bringing forward measures in that House; he merely objected to the principle upon which his legislative measures appeared to proceed; for that learned Gentleman never proposed a measure which professed to do good to the people, without at the same time doing something that was extremely disagreeable to them.

The Bill was passed.