Star. — London, England, 1811-03-29 00:00:00

1 few life, and thereihre ay ndependent of the Crown as any Judge on the beo h. With respect to the person that now filled that situation, there was not a more honourable man in existence. The Noble Lord bad stated that Special Juries were selected by the Court, but this was by no means the case. The Spe cial Jurors were taken from the fieehold book, and the officer whose province it was did not let even the Court ' know where he opened the book. He opened it at diffe rent parts, and took names to the amount 01'48, which were afterwards reduced to 24, and on the day of trial to 12. The Noble Lord had also gone into a state ment of cases, in which different judgments had been given. It was impossible at present to enter into this I discussion, and it certainly was not relevant to the subject before the House; but, making allowance • for human infirmity, it would be found that the I sa me principle was acted on, and that th e desire of justice had uniformly animated the Judges in the discharge of their public duty. Justice Holt, who had been referred to, was of opinion, even in his day, that the licentiousness of the press called for as much severity as was practised at present. The Noble Lord had stated, with some address, that White and Hart were sentenced to three years im prisonment. t Lord Folkestone here corrected him self by, whispering across the House two years.] He heard the Noble bird now say two years, but these two years were not for one libel, but for two, and of so gross a nature, that none who looked at their conduct would find any ground of accusation against the Judges for imposing this sentence. ( Hear, ker.) —lt had been stated by the Noble Lord • t* mockery, that persons in such cases h ad the "Wiit of a writ of error, because no redress could „,possibly be obtained, according to the present sys tern, of appeals before the Lords , till after th e pe riod of their confinement had expired. The Noble Lord; however, was in this case incorrect. Why did he forget that both White and Hart had the benefit of their writ of error, and that theirs being a criminal case, had the precedence of others, though the appeal had no effect ? If it was the object of the Noble Lord to make them believe that the criminal law was not duly administered, why did he not make a motion to that effect, or state some precise case in which the principles of criminal law were violated ? The Noble Lord had stated, that the hardships of persons pro secuted by informations ex officio were aggravated by a Bill which he (the Attorney-General) had intro duced about three years ago, which gave him the power, the Noble Lord stated, of throw ing . any of his Majesty's subjects at pleasure into a prison, unless he was able to find bail. He thought the Noble Lord had here made a slip, till he had heard him add that he had placed, by this Bill, every subject at his own controul. He surely could not misunder stand the Noble Lord ; but it was by no means cor rect that he had that power ascribed to him. The law gave him him no such power. The power of hold , ing to bail rested with the Judges, and not with the Attorney-General. The Judges were to exercise their discretion, and did not exercise even that power with out the necessary affidavits, stating the circumstances of the case. In proof of this, he mentioned the case of a man who, while ant information was pending against him, published a second libel, and was brought before Mr. Justice Le Blanc, who held him to bail. No power was now exercised that had not always been enjoyed, even by Justices of the Peace. If the Noble Lord looked back, he would see that no power was exercised now, that had not been exercised before by every Magistrate. A similar Bill had been intro duced into the Lords by LordEllenborough in 1804, and the only ground of laying it aside was the pro priety of such a measure originating in the Commons. (Hear, hear.) After a great deal of matter that had no bearing on the question, the Noble Lord had call ed on them to vote for his motion as founded in good sense. The ground given for this, motion was a charge against him of oppressive conduct, and the great number of informations that had taken place within the last three years. It had not been stated, however, that he had been guilty of any improper exercise of his official duties. He reminded the House that the Noble Lord had every facility at getting at the number of those informations, and had certainly the same opportunity of learning the causes that led to them, though these causes he had not stated, contrary to what he should have expected, from the assiduity and even curiosity of the Noble Lord, who could not fail of looking into the causes as well as number of those informations. On this subject however they had not heard a word. (Near, hear.) The House he trusted. would not deal so harshly with any man in bin situation as to judge him guilty on such slight and unsatisfactory grounds. The great question to bcconsidered, was not the number, but the causes of f the informations. If offences of this nature had in creased, the increased number of informations would necessarily follow.—( Hear, hot-J.—Hence arose the difficulty of the situation he had the honour to fill, and it would be unsafe and impolitic to pass over such offences. This would only give rise to a more frequent repetition of the offence, and he had no doubt that White and Hatt bad believed that publications of this nature would be. passed without notice, and had even urged that such offences had not' teen prosecuted previous to that time. In what situa tion then was the Law Officer of the Crown. If he did not prosecute, he was accused of holding out, by his practice, an immunity, and, consequent ly, an encouragement to offenders ; and if he did prosecute, he was accused of acting with severi ty. He trusted that the House would think some farther grounds necessary, before they gave their assent to such a motion, and that some particular cases opght to be pointed out where prosecution had unfairly taken place. (Hear, hear.) In stating 42 informations to have taken place, the Noble Lord had stated the number of individuals, and not of different libels If the libels were looked into, there would be found during the time specified not more than 18, andl this number could not be regarded as extraordinary, if' they considered that there were not less than between 2 and 300 publications weekly in London alone, tak-' ing the daily and other weekly prints. Ot these 18 cases of libel - some had been found by the verdict 41 the Jury, and in some judgment had been allowed to go by default. In three of the cases the defen dants had made a satisfactory apology, and therefore, all further proceedings had been dropped. He trus. I ted that it would not be imputed to him as a severity, - - . , i C 11 1 •••• • or not, he should not say. licitor-General and himself, proceedings were layed till a prosecution should be instituted against Mr. Roach, if not against Jeffers. Captain Roach, however, had in the mean time, softened the Trans port Office, and was called to foreign service. Was 1, therefore, said the Learned Gentleman, to be blamed in not proceeding farther in such circumstances ? (Hear, hear.) Another instance of partiality had been unjustly imputed to him, with respect to the gross and abusive libel on the Commissioners of the Pro- The Noble Lord had sta- perty Tax in Lancashire. ted, that the author was known, and had mentioned his name ; but this could only be from private infor mation ( Hear, hear) ; and it was well known that they might have such private information, and not be able at the same time to adduce legal evidence so as to obtain a verdict. The Noble Lord had insinuated, that the prosecution against Collier had been dropt ; but, on the contrary, it was now going forward, and in•the course of things he would be brought to a trial. His severity to Lovell had been mentioned, while the country publishers had not been proceeded against : but it ought to be recollected, that Lovell, in the Statesman, added remarks of his own, which were more offensive than the original ; and besides, he would not have had sufficient evidence against Col lier, without the country publishers—which was a sufficient reason for dropping farther proceedings against them.—He concluded, by contending that the press laboured under no sort of oppmsion that all due liberty was permitted to writers on all subjects, as appeared every day from the public prints. No good ground had been shewn for the motion, nor had the Noble Lord made it, in any instance, appear that he had violated his duty, and those obligations be owed to the public. Sir FRANCIS BURDETT really felt that an apology was necessary for trespassing further on the time of the House, after the able statement of his Noble Friend near him, and the very inadequate answer of the Learned Gentleman. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman, after the manner of his profession, seized the but abstained from every important minor points, topic. Considering the great number of Learned Gentlemen among them, he really expected that some new light would have been thrown on the law re specting this momentous subject, when the anxiety of the country was raised to such a pitch, and the liberty of the press so much concerned. The Noble Lord had displayed great knowledge of the subject, and accompanied his statements with argument. He had indeed proved the illegality of this mode of prosecu tion, though with that modesty which generally ac companied merit, he had expressed himself doubt fully. The Honourable and Learned Gentleman's speech was of a very different description. He had set out with a sweeping assertion, that it had been ad mitted on all hands that the Attorney-General pos sessed this power. The Noble Lord had made no such admission, but had contended that no Attorney- General could, by law, have such power. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman felt -indignant a the- id.., that the paltry tee of 6s. Bd. should have been consi dered as any inducement to resort to information rather than indictment. No—the Right Hon. Gen. tleman would certainly not be influenced by such a paltry fee : but persons in his situation might be led away by objects of greater magnitude—to the desire of obtaining which the imputation of a love of filthy lucre might no less aptly be applied. He thought Attorney-Generals must be glad of getting rid of such a power as this, which was contrary to law, and to common sense, the foundation of all law. The an swer to a charge of suffering a long time to elapse between the publication and prosecution was unneces sary, because no such charge had been made against the Hon. and Learned Gentleman personally. But the Noble Lord's speech consisted of two Rarts—the first shewing the impropriety of allowing such a power to exist in the hands of any Attorney-General ; and the second, relating to •the abuse of the power by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman. He might not file an information after a long lapse of time,but neither he nor any other ought to have such a power—and this was what the Noble Lord contended for. But the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had not said, our word upon a very heavy charge—that of dealing ow a different measure to those who supported the Ad ' ministration and those who opposed it. The lionens- e • resisted that lenity, but he trusted from no improper motive& If able Baratet thee dwelt with great force on the col Idasmahies hat a amitotic= part 'Why d ies l eol. the Noble Lord was prepared to state so, let him certainty of the law of libel. Nobody blew what tam to lay it Were the House.- - (N eer , k o o_h make the charge directly, and he was ready as directly it erase-ledges sitting on the same bench differed must bers be frodshavi: claimedthe rolleet respeas ien Im o! th tl o o H n oe some se, the e : to deny it. The author of the Independent Whig, to about it. Lord Coke appeared to consider truth as a l Allem . . whom he was not likely to be accused of sbewiog ) ustification-4ot some of his cotemporaryJudges ti ff- . tampons, while tbry have strenuenely i any unfair partiality, had been guilty, after the fired from him. -Some had thought the publication enquiry by which alone they could be m a d e re. Duke of York's business, of what be conceived to meat be proved false and malicious, while one Judge, sponsible. He believed the suspicions entertained of be a libel ; and on having filed an informatioll winst maintained that the most honest paper might be a , his HonourableFriend were unfounded, but him, it was represented to him by the Editor's Cun. libel. Lord Holt in a trial for libel said, " . bring ' ought to be removed. It would be said the= sel, that any farther period of imprisonment would your witness and prove the truth of what you have ' boas would not be refused, if they were not unit. prove a severe hardship, and be extremely prejudicial said ; " words without meaning, unless he considered I vourable. By his vote be was degrees that this mat. to the state of his health. It w a s also stated, that he truth a justification. Now, however, it was a libel to 1 ter should be clearly ascertained. The licentiousness was ready to apologize, and he therefore dropped the hurt the feelings of an individual I That this Was any I complained of was an additional reason for investiga. prosecution. He had no doubt that the House would, law at all, he totally denied. The most arbtry go- don, in order that the present state, of the press m ig h t in this case, acquit him of any impr o p er motive ;he vernment could not desire a greater power that be imown e after the many restraints imposed upon that was glad to have an opportunity of chewing the lenity of a power ef incarcerating upon mere information. ' liberty by several statutes, it was in his mind rath er he did, and particularly with respect to the party con- The Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman was lenient in need of encouragement than depression. The well cerned. There was one case still pending for trial, it appeared, when the alledged offenders bowed to his ! known effect of those statutes, and the proceedings sine two that were not yet in a state to be brought authority—but severe against those who write only i liken upon theta, was to deter Booksellers, even in forward. He would not conceal from the House that what they thought just and honest, and maintained it. publications of the. most innocent nature and ten. the question respecting the Duke of York gave rise The only case in which he had exercised this power dency. The opinion of former Law Officers of the to many cases that we re a f terwar ds stopped ; but if j was one of the latter kind. The Honourable Baronet Crown had been freely given upon the subject of the House recollected for a moment the state of the ', next contended, that libel was but a modernoffence in publications, and he knew that it had been 4 maxim public mind at that time, and the nature of the inves- I, law. It was contrary to the great charter, which re. with some to hold Booksellers and Publishers in awe, tigation that took place before the House. they could i quired, that no man should be taiga without the judg. under the pretext that by so doing libels would be less not fail of approving of his conduct in dropping those ment of his Peers—and " the law of the land" ap- frequent by holding them responsible. But he thought prosecutions. The Noble Lord had stated, that it was plied equally to the grand and petty Jury. How any ' the principle unjustifiable, and that the administra. in the power of the Attorney-General to keep a pro- one might be held to bail, which was in fact im- tion of justice should be carefully watched : it was secution hanging over a man's head, and after a long prisonment by the Attorney-General, for the Judge the more incumbent to do so Worn the state of the delay to resume it at pleasure. Had a charge of this would not be much inclined to refuse full credit to his law which makes the business, in all its departments, nature been brought against him, there might have information. When the person accused of libel was ' extremely dangerous, so mucli. so indeed, that if the been some room for discussion ; but no such charge once in their clutches, they passed sentences which law should be strictly enforced, no Printer could wi t h, had been alledged. The Noble Lord had alledged were hardly ever used in cases of high crimes. The Assiut atirliefity its himself engage is it. The powers i that some prosecutions had been dropped because the very term libel was not law. When burglary and other ,of his Majesty's Au.oreey-General should undouse, parties had afterwards changed sides in politics ; but crimes were mentioned, one knew w at they were. ' edly be exercised with great discretion, and he did t he language of the Noble Lord was so unintelligible But libel meant nothing or any' thing. It was a book lest doubt but in the present instance they would b e t h a t he could form no idea of any case to which he which displeased the Attorney-General—for which he ;found to be used with discretion, but he thought th a t a lluded. The Noble Lord had chirged him with might imprison . at his pleasure, being the Judge of the the House should be put in possession of such inf or . partiality in the case of a Morning Paper, because amount of bail. He might put off the trial as often as raation as would enable them to come to a proper finding the case depending w::en he came into office, he pleased, it the Jury was not complete, and he be- judgment upon this subject. he did not follow it up. He wished the Noble Lord lieved, even if it were. There was, indeed, no end to 1 Mr.. ELLIOT made a . short speech ie favour of had made more enquiry on this subject. The prose- such a power with an offence so uncertain as libel. It the law of libel as it now stands, and contended that cution was instituted in 1806, when his Right Ho- was impossible for any one to k no w w hether he had ;it should not be altered on weak grounds. The No. nourable Friend occupied the office of Attorney-Gene. done any thing that subjected him to punishment or j ble Lord's objections rested peon two positions, both ral. Mr. Jeffers, the author, was abroad, and Capt. not. The Hon. Baronet then stated, that he had from lof than untenable, namely, Illegality or abuse • bet Roach refused to make any apology, whether proper curio s i t y , g one to the Crown O ffi ce to see the manner neither had been proved. The law Lad subsiste d: for By the advice of the So. of striking the Jury, to - the action between himself j a ' e time, and in his opinion an Attorney-General all de- - ' the Sr " - for l _ tri and _ opeaker, and 'lse found that the plan was the Master to take such as he pleased from the book —the addition of Esquire being the distinction of Spe cial Jurymen. There was besides, he understood, a select list of 400 persons anxious to serve as Special of trade. A Juries, which had become a son __ great ! number of persons connected with Government, by ," some motives of interest, were sure to be na that list, I and they might, no doubt, from that circumstance. as well as from a desire of being often employed as Jurymen, have a bias to give a verdict to long ought to be invested with some share of discretionary power. The presumption, he also contended, was in favour of its being used 4iscreetly from the controul to which it was subject. He thought the general result favourable to the liberty of the subject; he never knew - ill follow from it. He concluded by condemn. any b to ing the licentiousness of modem publications, and de claring his intention therefore of voting against the motion. Mr. YORKE expressed great satisfaction at the present ; though adverse to tht proposition discussion - of the Noble Lor d, he was glad that he had brought it under the consideration of the House, inasmuch as it called forth those learned observations of the At. torney-General, from which he derived so much in. formation. He proceeded to state that the best me. shod to preserve the freedom of the press was to curb its licentiousness, and in opposition to an Honourable Baronet he would say, that if the pen should be found as mischievous as the sword, he saw no reason why it should not be equally punished, and intention was in his mind a wrong criteljani, and ought not to be pleaded in justi fi cation. Lord FOLKESTONE replied to the arraments of the Attorney-General, and the Gentlemen on the same side. It had been said that be had stated no grounds for his motion, but he had stated grounds both of a general and a particular nature. With respect to the latter, the papers it furnished would give the necessary information. He conceived himself audio rised in asserting that he spoke from authority in what he had stated, and the evidetke of that would be found in the Attorney-General not following up the prosecutions which he had commenced. As to what had been said, therefore, of the satisfaction of an apo logy, he thought tha,t, no grounds for giving up a prosecution once commenced, for that he ought to have examined. And as he has stated the increase of libellous matter, and the increased disposition of the people to libel, he thought it necessary for him to sub stantiate the charge, and prove by something better than assertion, that from that cause it arises, that the . 1 'els of 1806 are in - to those of 1810, as n to 1.1 agreeable Government. In his case, he believed, the Jury were struck without any prejudice against him. He only objected to the mode. They might have been taken from the select list. The Honourable Baronet then stated, that the law of libel arose from the sla vish civil law, and even there libel.was an abuse of the law. Tacitus mentioned, that the perversion began in the reign of Augustus, and it was carried there to such an extent, that not only writing and speaking, but even looks, sighs, groans, and tears, became the ground of prosecution. The practice had been carried to such an extent equally ridiculons and barbarous in the reign of the Smarts in this country. It had been deemed a libel to drink to the pious memory of Ste phen College, and an Anabaptist was considered as having published a venomous libel, in'saying, that baptism ought to be performed at the age at which the Apostles baptized. Mischief might be done by a pen as well as by a dagger, and then he thought punishment should follow. But then malice ought to be proved, as in the prosecutions for other crimes.— He concluded by declaring his approbation of the motion, more particularly as he considered it but as a step to a reform of the law, or rather practice of libel. Mr. STEPHEN defended the conduct of the At torney-General, and stated, that though he had paid , great attention to the speech of the Noble Lord and , the Hon. Baronet, he could see no foundation what ever for the charge. That ex cluip informations were as ancient as the common law of the kingdom, and sanctioned by repeated Acts of Parliament. He should not follow the Hon. Baronet into the Roman and Imperial Law ; the question was, Whether any reason had been shewn why the present motion should be acceded to ?—The Noble Lord who made the mo. tion appeared to him to have contradicted himself in' the course of his argument, one part of which an- I swered the other. There was not a single instance in which the party who thought himself aggrieved might not, by a writ of error, bring it before the Lords, as had been done in a recent example. If the Honourable Baronet were not conscientiously ad verse to prosecutions for libel, he certainly would have prosecuted in a recent case of a libel against himself. The Honourable Member here read certain expressions put by the newspapers into the mouth of the Hon. Baronet on a late occasion, and which he maintained were grossly libelous. Even in what had been termed the purest periods of our Government; the punishment for libel had been mere seven thee it was at peseta. -(lof.this the Hon. Member gave a number of examples from the reigns of Wil liam and Mary, Queen Anne, and George the First Second ; and concluded with observing, that the lil 1n proportion 14. What had fallen from an Hon. Baronet he con ceived unanswerable ; he thought it unnecessary forhirn to add to these observations. He gave the Hone urable and Learned Gentleman credit for great politeness, and for freedom from such unworthy motives as he had supposed that he (Lord Folkestone) bad ascribed to him. Nothing could be further from his . thuught than to ascribe filthy lucre as a motive for any of his actions I though he would take the liberty of saying, that he wished that a certain friend of his had experieneed similar liberality from him. That friend was Mr. Cobbett, on whom his Lordship be stowed many encomiums, both on account of his public and private character. His Lordship touched 'upon many of the topies.of his preceding speech, and dwelt much upon the practice of suspending prose cutions, and occasionally for motives with which the p . ublic are aactuaiate4, omitting them altogether. By ihe'Acrof the i nth of his present Majesty, he thought that it was in the breast of an Attorney-Ge neral to commit.any man. Affidavit of an informa he believed, evidence which a Judge must and _ _.si ; ana c0n5......'._ . _ ..,, %.•_ legality of the powerwas not more questionable than the moderation with which it , was exerted. The Hon. Gentleman was against the motion. Mr. PETER MOORE observed, that the freedom of the press had grown with the growth of the em pire ; that an alarm had gone forth and struck a great panic among the Booksellers (latuthing), and that Spain was a dead weight upon us because she had not a free press. Sir S. ROMILLY said, he should state very short ly his reasons for assenting to the motion. Whatever had been said on the other side, tended to prove its reasonableness and propriety, as nothing should be secret, that involved our political, civil, and religi gious liberties. If there were no foundation for any charge against the Attorney-General, why refuse to accede to the motion l All that the House had heard was a statements of fasts on one side, and a contrary It llat statement on the ether. Out of these it was neves . y to extract the truth by the production of the pa. pen moved for. No one cot 4 know the contents of these libels, or how long they had been suspended over the heads of the accused. From the statement of i • I the Attorney•Gtneral, be had acted not only an ua-1 g 4; Pd. 114.40.0- yes ilfs: a, aserdpesik. • _ - tion was, ___ admit. He mentioned the case of Gorman, a printer, as a grievous abuse of the power of that Act of Par. liament. Resting his case upon the proofs he had advanced, none of which had been refuted, he would leave the question to the House. Mr. GEORGE ADAMS spoke on the same side. The question was then loudly called for, and the House divided.—For the motion 96—Against it 119 ..—Maiovitv against the motionl3B.—Adjourned. Cease aissos Uses - too—At the close a the poll the numbers were for Lord Palmerstooe 459—Mr. Smyth 341—Msjoril for Lord'P. 112, when he was declared duly elected. Comm MARILIT, MARIC-LANt, MAIMS 29.—This day we have tolerable remaining supplies of Wheat, and owing to the late Still stocks of Pour, .very few sales are erected, excepting for fine samples which maintain last prices.—Bar lay buoy sale at our last geotatioa—Malt and White Pen vary but little--New Tick Beans ors. to 376.—01d,as last--There me likewise tolerable re. Ruining tampliaa of Oats ; fine [Wily keep their price, and second, With Inferior, somewhat lowee-4.10ur remain at ear late prices. YKICE UV STOCKS 'IRIS DAY AT ONE O'CLOCK. Caw* money, 843 —f mow, 64 SS Navy 3 Per Cent. 1176 'ash. 80. pee 2s. 4s. pew.—Bond 4la. Us. prem. I,IIIII.IEISIT, a t he STA& la w Teasph Pon dust in such cases he had drnilied any further pr-o lin :night have been gailty of too much ..~.~ _ ~~ , I I 't . 4 .e" . .7 1 • , .:~'~ :