Star. — London, England, 1819-12-11 00:00:00

V t t :~ 1 !;: ~ , !. S I ; * ' ; 0 g . I . I they had said amounted trielfdy to this—lf there ha j been such an increase of libel as -you tisser h t . , wlrrntit p r etend to ,say wether you prosecute? We do not are right or not in what you stated..-but before you call upon us to pass new enactments, prove that the existing law has failed. But with regard to the in crease of libels, it was well said by his Noble Friend (Lord Holland), last night, that the question • their Lordships ought to consider was, not their number:,l but the proportion that number bore to other publi cations. The printing of works, on every subject, had increased, and particularly on religion. He was informed by a Noble Friend, who had attest to know the state of publications of that description, , that making an estimate from what had been printed ' in the .coorse of one month, the number of 'Religious Tracts published, could not be less than 500,000 a year. Some might conclude, from this state of the Press,. that there was a greater : tendency to bigotry, than to infidelity. The Noble and Learned Lord I then alluded to that anomaly in the law by which' one person is punished for the acts •of another. He pointed out, very strongly, the hardship-of persons, in extensive business, having to trust to servants, who might be truly trust-worthy, being subject to severe and degrading punishments. His Noble Friend (Lord Holland), had, last night, made some quota tions from that great man, Mr. Burke ; but his Noble Friend had afterwards observed to him, that he had forgot to notice the passage-relative to an Addressing Parliament and a Petitiqning People. Nothing could have been more applicable to the present occasion. He brought other passages to the recollection of his Noble Friend, for his memory could supply him with a vast number of the excellent observations made by that Statesman. Here his Lordship repeated a long passage from a speech of Mr. Burke on the dispute with the American Colonies, and concluded by sup porting the Amendment. The Duke of WELLINGTON thought that the Noble Lord, who had just sat down, was entirely mis taken in the view he had taken of this subject. Their' Lordships were not now to consider the question whether blasphemous and seditious libels ought, or ought not, to be prosecuted? but whether a more se vere punishment than that provided by the existing law, ought, or ought not, to be inflicted, upon a re petition of the offence ? I certainly should sup port the affirmative upon this question, and he found himself justified in doing so, when he reflected on the necessity of the case. It was a notorious fact, that Caride was enabled to repeat the same offence, net only after his conviction, but immediately before he was brought up to receive judgment, the existing law having no power to restrain him. Lord HOLLAND said, that the opposition of the Noble Duke to the Amendment was founded on ar guments which would tend to establish a most ex traordinary and most dangerous precedent. The Noble Duke contended, that the extent to which pro secutions had been carried was not the :object which their Lordships had to consider, but whether because ' one individual had continued in the commission ofl the same offence after his conviction, a more severe punishment ought not to be adopted than the law had before provided? But it was to be recollected, that if that rjndividual, Carlik, continued to publish libels subsequently to his conviction, he was liable to be punichskil for every repetition of the offence, without the aid of any new law whatever. Nor did he (Lord Holland) see what was to prevent a mah from sending forth a libel from the place of his exile, as well as from his prison : but the precedent which, the Noble Duke's arguments sought to establish, would sanction a progression in punishment from one stage to another, till 'at last it should end in' death—( Near, hear).—Tho Noble Lord concluded, by declaring himself in favour of the Amendment. •• The Earl of WESTMORELAND opposed the Amendment, and mentioned, that the new measures were not directed against the liberties of the People, but intended as their protection against anarchy, which must eventually end in despotism. Earl GROSVENOR was in favour of the Amend ment, and said, that the accounts of the actual dan ger in the country were fatly exaggerated. In proof of this fact, he need only to mention, that the most alarming reports were industriously circu lated respecting the disturbance which had recently taken place amongst the collier; in Flintshire, but which had, by this time, entirely subsided. It had been connected with no political cause whatever, but arose merely out of a difference about wages, which had been settled by an amicable adjustment. The Noble Earl then, in allusion to blasphemous libels, on which, he said, no difference of opinion could possibly exist, deprecated the mixture of spiritual. with secular concerns, and the interference of spiritual persons in matters not pertaining to their office; while, at the same time, he was - fully prepared to appreciate the laudable seal of the Bishop of London in circulating religious tracts, as an antidote to the poison of infidel publications. The Bishop of LANDAFF spoke against the Amendment, but confined' himself particularly to blasphemous libels. Against these he was convinced, that * new enactment was necessary, as they were now brought down to the level of the meanest capa city, being totally devoid of argument; and, it mighs justly be said oPthe a Age of Reason," that it was' without any reason at all. He was as well acquainted with infidel writings—almost as well as any man . who was not an infidel himself, but they now assumed quite a different aspect from that which they bore in the last century, when they were written by men of liberal education, and confined in their power to iti-1 jure, because only few were capable of comprehend -1 mg them. The Right Rev. Prelate repeated his opi nion, that the Bill, as it was framed, was urgently' called for by the necessity of the occasion. Lord LILFORD opposed the Amendment, and read extracts from the evidence, to prove the nature and extent of the alleged danger in which the country was placed. The Earl of CARNARVON replied ; and the Bill was then read sithird time and passed, the Amend ment being negatived without a division. Adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, 'Mrs C. HUTCHINSON presented a Petition from I bilialltants of Co,* for a Bill to repair Cork Harbour. (erred so a Committee. - The Cotton Factory Amendment Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Monday. The second reading of the Fedryn Bribery Bill was post poned to nest Monday. Lord ARCHIBALD HAMILTON gave notice, that on 4 .t. ~.... Tuesday "Wets( be should amtve for tie reilvalof the Com nags or Scotch 1 3 urthi• WALT DVIk. Lt/SHTNGTON brain brought up the Report of the Nek Any BM, Lord A. HAMILTON atikpletaell of the manner is width Its provisions effected' Scothatd. They had the elect of ralabg the Deities on Scotch Barley to about the same price as the • ley itself, or within a abating of it. This was putting the Countries on an equal footing, and ought to be corrected. This arose probttbly from the existence of two Bills upon the subject, the one permanent, and the other annual. He should &by bather observations Witte permanent measure should be beferc the House, when he should call its attention to the gross in lice which was thus done to &ottani!. Mr. 1,1:SIIINGTON stated, that the correction of any error which might have been tiorasitsed would come.raore pro perly in the permanent .BUL The subject should be investi gated with the greatein care, to ascertain whether any error seined, and if it did, his Majesty's Government would be most willing to correct k. The Report was then agreed to, and the Bill ordered for a third readbig on Monday. . PRIVILEOZ. Mr. tOURTNEY rose in pursuance of his notice yesterday, to bring before the House a Publication, in which was contained a direct invasion of its privi leges. He could assure the liciuse,- that the task which he had undertaken was to him one extremely painful, and nothing but a strong conscientious feel ing of duty could induce him to attempt it. How ever, having once made up his mind as to the neces sity there was for having the Pamphlet noticed bj some one in the House, he was led afterwards to the belief that the duty ought very naturally to devolve on himself, partly.indeed, from an idea that he heard the passages more distinctly, as they were read, and as they made therefore a greater impression on his mind—partly, because he was quite unacquainted with the person to whom the Pamphlet was imputed, and very little interested in the political contention to which it alluded—and, lastly, because the nature of the place which he held in that House, gave to him a character of impartiality, which he thought it would be proper to maintain upon this occasion.— He was as willing as any other Member to allow that there were cases of the publication of matter re flecting improperly on the character and proceedings of that House, which it would be more consistent with good sense and prudence if the House did not notice. But between these publications and the Pam phlet in his hand, there was a manifest difference.— In the first place, the House was put into a very de 'cote prediciment by the circumstance of the Pam phlet being read and commented on by an Honour able Member in his place—(Hear, hear). He never 'met a publication which, in his view, contained n greater invasion of the privileges of the House. In addition to this, it held out a strong recommendation that the House of Commons should be reformed by " brute force ;" that the People should, of themselves, abrogate the authority of their Representatives, and disperse the Members by physical means. The House was aware that the circulation of publications of a seditious and blasphemous nature had excited so strong a feeling in the Public, that Parliament was forced to enact preventive measures. If Parliament had neglected to do this, with what justice might it be said in future times, when the mischiefs of these wicked publications were fully developed, that Par liament has been instrumental, in a great measure, to the ultimate production of these events, by not havi • originally provided a remedy to check the causes • them ? With what tenfold force might not the sa argument be used to justify the greatest outrages on, the privileges of the House of Commons, if that House, having brought before it a Pamphlet - • 3 •ffensive to its chaster, refused to inflict a just measure of punishment on its author? He need not take up the time of the House by referring to prece dents, is which the Houle adopted measures for the vindication of its dignity and character. Every one who heard him was suffickntly familiar with cases of this kind, and there were various instances in which the proceedings were conducted by Gentlemen who were at all times conspicuous for their zeal in the cause of the People. Mr. For and Mr. Sheridan, in that House, had contended that the best way of maintaining the Rights of the People, was to uphold the dignity of the House of Comm Hear, hear). Sot the House, on this occasion, was called upon to "notice, not only an attack upon its dignity, but also i recommendation which,, if it was carried into effect, must destroy their very existence. The language not Only reflected on the character of the House, but con- Mined a direct threat, 'and an advice to the People, quite of a novel description. The House has already card some obnoxious passages of the Pamphlet read. Hence he felt it would be improper if he did not also read to the House those passages which, in his mind, were the most offensive. The Pamphlet treated, at much length, the question of Parliamentary Reform, d the Author complained much of those persons, whom he described as having abandoned their former principles. After speaking of the House of Commons 111 terms of extreme severity, the Author observes— " What prevents the People from walking down to the Hoe* and pulling out the Members by the ears, locking up thel . edeoes, and flinging the.key into the Thames? Is it any which hedges in the Members of that Assembly? Do w i titt i them? Not at all—we have an instinctive horror and • at the very abstract idea of a Borouglunonger. Do we aspect them? Not in the kart. Do we regard them as es dovred with any superior qualities? On the contrary, indivi dually there is scarcely a poorer creature than your mere Mem ber of Parliament • though in his corporat e capac i ty t h e eart h furnishes not so a bsolute a bully. Their true practical protectors lies. the real clic:lent Anti-Reformers, are to be found at the Horse Guards, and the Knightsbrid ge B arrac k s ! A s l ong as tha House of Commous majorities an backed by the regimental *spacer roll, so long may theme who have got the Tax power ' I I " h . —Such e u i m t c; hfoa nd justified a n s t Ti g h e th ose erne language werew ad o p ti ng hsr esist a h wn t ao h r this w riter he doubt, i who thought ohu oseeox .f ns. ny, pressed an anxiety for a Reform of the House of Commons. He was willing to allow individuals to, express their opinions upon the subject as strongly as they pleased—let them be as argent as they could is rasing the necessity of it upon the country—let' Om advocate even the doctrines of • the visionary Reformers if they thought proper, but to call on the pie to exert their physical force to bring about Reform—to endeavour to deceive them into a belief , Lthat they ought to do so, every one must allow to be an intolerable violation of all legal and prudent re straints. He would say, that the pamphlet, the ex tract which he had just read, did hold out In plain intelligible terms, that it was by force alone they could effect an improvement in the state of the Re presentation. After stating' the unreasonableness of expecting that Reform could be produced by the Meuse of Commons, ho said—" Nothing but brute : . • •orce, or the pressing fear of it, will ref orm 'lament." With what other view could be written, than as an encouragement to cation of brute force by the people. It no;other obnoxious passage; in the pamphlet be thought it would be sufficient to desert., prehension of the House. In what a situ; the House and the Country placed, if the this pamphlet were suffered to go unpin they lived to see the practical effects which suit from the recommendation contained pamphlet, what could they say to the wretches who might be deluded by it int mission of acts, the idea of which made one if now, that the pamphlet was brought before they refused to manifest a proper degree i' against the author of that recommendatic n calculated, as it was, to lead to the subversioi Constitution. Would not any unfortuii, who was involved in these alarmint: transact a future time say to the House of Commons are now pouring down your vengeance • when you yourselves have refused to pun; son by whose advice and recommendaticr into the fatal course, I have pursued ?" this be a very justifiable reproach, if the refused to act with just severity against of that advice ? This pamphlet, it was ev l ftom whom it might, was the preductii son holding no mean station in society. ; nifestly a man . of great education, and en, very considerable accomplishments. House was pouring its vengeance on the of low two-penny publications, would the productions of a man whose advantat many recommendations to the dissemir opinions? (Hear!) He thought the House resist taking the most serious notice of thi In this opinion, he knew many concurred By their advice he was induced to undertv . as well as from a conviction that impunit thor would be a strong encouragement merous and moreaggravated violations kind. At the same time, he was sensible peculiarly necessary to proceed on this occ; great caution, and that whatever was should be done after mature deliberation. anxious that the first step taken in this be to call to the Bar of the House the a view of ascertaining the real offender. then move, that R. Stodart, 81, Strand, to 41te Bar of the House on Monday next. there were cases wherein a Resolution as ratter of the publication, was put, agreed then the author, or publisher, was•exal Bar: but there were also cases in whici process took precedence of the former, present instance, being one in which the was concealed, he wished that the first stn the House would be to bring the printer He concluded by tabserding, that it was ' design that the House would take just , of the author, and the publisher, as they The Hon. Gentleman then delivered in , tion of which he complained, the title of read by the Clerk. He then . moved, that . dart, bookseller in the Strand, be ordered at the Bar of the House on Monday next Sir FRANCIS BURDETT said, it him that the House was in an awful 1 in attempting, at the present time, the a power, under the denomination of which was repugnant to the sense of Country, after it had but a fesv days belga e entering into an inquiry which the whole loudly demanded. After the House h; dared its incapacity to exercise its inquil dons,. was it now to take upon itself a was at once inquisitorial and judicial? had abandoned its right, of inquiry, on . wiles% inquiry would be.of the greatest benerit People; and now it was called' on to determi ther a passage which had just been read ._ was a libel? and persons were to be punished vote of the House alone, without being affo opportunity to bring forward evidence in fence. This mode of prosecuting was ir and *mild excite great distatisfattron thi Country. The Rouse was thus to become in its own cause, and to usurp.all that mon , stunption of power, which would only lower i.. it could be, in the estimation of the Public: The aourable and 'Learned Gentleinan who now plained to the House, had not stated that an) had been committed ; besides, the whole book to have been read, when it might appear, by the, text, that the passage he quoted was harmless * For my own pan," said the Honourable Barone, " I believe the statements contained in the Wet to be true; for I believe, that the character of a Bo roughmonger is as low and as despicable as character canoe" He could quote horn Mr. Si and Lord Chatham passages which were as sea. this against the Boroughmongers. Lord Chatham had declared that House to be so corrupt a bode. 3 to be subversive of all law and order. Yet no pro ceeding was ever adopted against either of these per sons, or any complaint preferred against them : having broken the Privileges of Parliament. Privileges of that House were granted for the par pose of supporting the Members in doing their duct Mr the People, and to protect them against interrup tion in the performance of that duty. But there never could be any thing more monstrous than 1 1 .-a: of the House claiming a privilege to do whatevei it pleased, in opposition to the will of the People. Mere the Honourable Baronet read a passage from Selden, in which that great lawyer gave a definitive. of ParliAinent Men ; he said, that " like great Prir, they could do what they pleased, and call that thor privilege; and that they exercised the greatest tyrant' 4in which could exist any where." He objected, then, t the proceeding which was now about to be adniiteot d could not concur with the Hon, and Leached Gentleman in the construction which he put upon the .ptiblication in question. He talked of the disgust which such a publication must excite; but what would he say to the general disgust which the Bills then before Parliament must excite all over the king dom—Bills which were to be carried into effect by force ?—(flear, hear ) . That Bosse had already lot its authority, ;nd it.was only by .coercive measures that it could compel the People to yield obedience te it—(Hear, heir). - Yet the House Would now consi der it highly penal to say sol The House had de clared their conviction that force ;lone proteFled • • . • • - ,• . -4. • 4 0 * - • 4,411, :oral h itthio let tis thh th thseeenre a eat n :ew l tht seise:urarteionth,:. wasfic the 'hjiet I(rich t a v e tined pr e int u o n f tli n e uto' •P'f;tc !. one shut!,. t before t: : Te of sere -: ** *e l' tion, so 1 1% , iversior, of, nt tunate peg., cl at ansactior.s. rd imons, Ice arca , rt iunish the . :ions I was .. " Would . st he House ~ Ist the , a evident, e, its ction of a ci He try .ro! endav ed et wki kz rer the circi;:at: ar I they pu g , ntages was iu nination of , ouse could . tb this pamplg . •se rred with hi., e ertake theta Ise , .nity to thi s a int nt to more ~ ins of a situ.' an able that it • . I a s occasion . as to be d.. su 'ation. He . p: s matter shot le printer, W ' sit er. He ' di nd, be brou text. Ile h. Is n as to the I Y agreed to ; s xamined at • w. hich the I cc ser, and in t. the real Audi , ' se ,t step Liken b ns ster to the : as his wi'b SO much gey de , in the publ'• eof which . ' sat Robert S lered to art • ' ext. it apreared Il predicam • the exercise of Priyfleges, of the while before -died whole Nation P had thus de e luisitorial font. v power whir= ? The Horn on an erasion t benefit to the determine *he , td from a beak ounished by the ng afforded is Ice in their de. ts most unjust„ througbouttbe ecOme a Judge monstrous as. )wer it, if lower blic: The Ht •ho now Gn• hat any offence ale book wee 'ar, by the COn. as harmless.— trable Baronet, I n the booi to atter of a picaßo- Gle° mp rytad b i tesa l eb h.ir a oaßtie s t r u. &:k r L e v t er of these per• tinst them, ef liament. The for the pur- ling their duty ainst 7. Bo there ous than that cto whatever tt f the People. passage flora ye a dofinitioa great Prince'. call that their eatest t yranny ected, then, to :o be adypteo, and Leuzieci put upon the the disgtet te; but what .i.g..1. vb., Rills II • • 4 . I 1.,•-• r • \;: 4 .- addressee t ; . of the circus table. lie I : . been no pro [i i 11 . th Th e is i3i c i er i. ta v ii tt pose, that ti . •' ~ ..1 . condemning 1i . • . i I PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS. HOUSE OF LORDS, DECEMBER 10. The CIIANCT.LLOR of the FICHCQUit brought up the ftwort of till- Drilling and Training Bill from the Commons, witlif 'eve nt verb.sl amendments, which, on the motion of Lord Sus- suatanoware agreed to vritboataliscuasion. The Earl of CA RNAEVON presented a Petition from the Inhabitants of Puddington, in the County of Devon, praying for a subdivision of the aist ' ricts where LiCeIIGNI are granted to iPoblie-houses. Lord IWLLE said a few words to the same effect as on Monday night, with regard to the application having been re jected by the Quarter Sessions; after Which the Petition was nr dared to lie on the table. LIBEL. PREVENTION BILL. Lord SIDMOUTH moved the third reading of this Bill; upon which The Earl of CARNARVON rose and said, that after the ample discussion which .the subject bad al ready undergone, it was not his intention to detain their Lordships at any length in the observations he had now to submit. Willing as he was to accede to an; -measure which the exigency of the occasion might require, still he could by no means support one which should have for its object a permanent alteration in the existing laws, unless stronger argu ments were adduced than those already brought for ward. He thought it behoved the Noble Viscelet, before he alleged that the laws of the land were in sufficient for the ends of justice, to prove how far they had been put into execution, and to what; extent seditious libels had been prosecuted•during the last two or three years—Wear, hear). It excited his astonishment to see that new laws were called for, when, if the number of prosecutions instituted by the Attorney-General during the year 1818, were summed tip, it would. be found to amount to nil. The fact was, that there was no increase whatever of blasphe-1 mous or seditious libels, till the beginning of the present year, and even these were much exaggerated, as to the number in circulation. He must protest, as he had already done, against making local and temporary dangers the grounds for effecting a per manent change in the Constitution ; and, with this impression upon his mind, should now move, as an Amendment, that " the Act do continue in force two years after the passing of the Bill, and no more." Lord SIDMOUTH opposed the Amendment, ob serving he had never till that moment heard of the Noble Earl's readiness to accede to any measure of a temporary nature, nor had this Bill originated in the mere necessity of meeting temporary difficulties and local dangers. No ;it was framed for the purpose of seeming the Religion and Constitution of the Country against the assaults of seditious blasphemers, whose object was to destroy both. Yet he held it to be an imperative duty on their Lordships, to mark their regard for the sacred Institutions of the coun try, by giving their assent to the provisions of this Bill ; and he might be permitted to observe, that the existing law upon the subject was far more severe than the new one, inasmuch as it recognized, even for the first offence, that most degrading and ignominious punishment the pillory, in addition to fine and im prisonment. This Bill, however, reserved for the second offence, the more severe punishment, which was banishment or transportation, while it altogether rejected that of the pillory, as incompatible with a civilized system of jurisprudence. With respect to the question why blasphemous and seditious libels had not beta more frequently prosecuted during the last three years? he oould assure the Noble Earl, that two of the most eminent men that the country hid produced, the then Attorney and Solicitor-Gene ral, applied their minds to the subject with the most earnest attention, but found that the acquittal of one person had produced so much confidence in others, that they set all prosecution at defiance, and it was considered of no avail to proceed against them. It was i fact, however, worthy of being noticed, that the number of libels in 1818 decreased considerably, and this induced a hope which, in the sequel, proved a fallacious one, that the authors would soon find it an unprofitable trade to send them among the People— They - , however, multiplied to such an extent in the beginning of the year 1819, that the Government found it necessary to call upon the Law Officers, to. increase the prosecutions in a proportionate ratio; but it was still found that all their activity would not be sufficient to counteract the evil, if they were not invested with additional powers. But the lan guage now used by Noble Lords on the other side was not new, and he remembered tp have heard si milar charges of remissness in prosecuting, urged against the Government in 1792. Yet when, in that year, the Magistrates had been called upon to use every endeavour in detecting and punishing the au thors and publishers of such libels as those of the present day, there was a cry raised, that the object was to encourage and establish an unconstitutional power. There was then an association, which subscri bed voluntarily to prosecute such libels, and among the Members of it were Mr. Windham, Sir W. Grant, and the late Mr. Perceval ; but their laudable efforts were held forth as dangerous to the Constitotion, by those very men who did not hesitate to return thanks to his Noble and Learned Friend on the other side, (Lord Erskinel, for his defence of Tom Paine. Thus it had happened also, with regard to himself. When he had called tin the Magistrates to stop the pro gress of sedition and blasphemy, within their respec tive jurisdictions, he was charged with a violation of his official duty. With respect to the Amendment, he should oppose it in decided terms, and he thought if there was any deficiency in the Bill, it was in not providing a punishment severe enough for offences which might.be committed in the first instance. The Earl of ROSSLYN supported the Amend ment, and contended that the decrease of libels in lifb, immediately after the acquittal of Mr. Hone, was the strongest argument that could be urged, why no new laws were necessary to suppress them. lie was unwilling, he said, to impute undue motives to any men, yet, it would seem, that Ministeri were arming themselves with powers unknown to the Constitution, for no effect that could, in the least, be favourable to it. Lord ERSKINE was not aware, when he formerly addressed their Lordships on the subject of this Bill, of the circumstances disclosed by the papers on the table. lie could not .know that in 1818 there had been no prosecution instituted, and in 1819.0n1y one. , ainly, aftbrded further ground for resisting But the Noble Viscount ought not to sup those who opposed this measure had been ►g Ministers for not prosecuting. What