Star. — London, England, 1819-12-10 00:00:00

• C?'! F! .., pet - MT.; ' .... f . "7. 1 ( he - ,7751 '•• • ' ' ' . '.- :::. : .. • • .-• Celli • e•: - . . ' ' • - ' , 0 . 7 ~ -_-.- 0-0, - V% • , , • f.,, • . '..) . . ' • . . 4 ,„ ..., , i ,„ -- .. A. .. - i . • ' •, • . ' 4 '‘. ---..' r IV ' :4 . • . . . . -eb •ia. e . . . . . . : - • i.7 - :ir .intl.f.oter torft. ' -- - .. 7 - -- -%E..... ..09 , --"%%.........._, , 0 AL , .. . . ii '7 N., a . ••• A = ' ° ":; 4 4, 1` Lay? int attnot,s',-t0k , ... , ..,'"1" - - tog viipipom . ,4tti 4 4 4 - (( , , °___ S ‘ • 1 . t : !*> i t .; " , 4 : , 4 4' llei...c li At ik - : ... e .. 4 0C 01 '‘ , ' ‘ '.i ,1 . r. , ..• :.: .. '\ k 4 •• -, .- t., (2' , Vtii . ?$: : I . .- • , , 4-, . . ' - * - 11 111 r • . l. , ... 1 4' r.Paapie . '• . ' .. 4..,- r ....i1m.... ..- ~-, . 1 ~ .. 4 ' . • n.. ' •• S :41t 3r) s , 4 •'.,Vtli, 3V 4 ...4 3•!t , ; .... ? ...1.41 • 4 .1 .. f.' .. . . :Qt t . - l A;i • ;1; Jc.Si%sce.pswr . s • -~ RY PROCEEDINGS. EMS, DECEMBER 9. ri presented a Petition front David Samuel Dawson, brothers of Ed consequence of wounds by received Manchester Meeting. The PO , had attended the Meeting in gess n legally convened, and that several icted'on him whereby be died ota Manchester. If also al (rest 'bath agreed as to the wounds t could not say how they had bees severnl witnesses who could swear tually occurred. In conclusion, istitute a full and impartial inquiry chester.—The Petition was ordered INDICTMENTS BILL. rESBURY (the Chairman of ht up the Report of this Bill, CHANCELLOR descended from ..posed some verbal Amend eed to after a few words from Mich the Noble and Learned Iroposed a clause far compel eral to proceed with the trial fcio information, within eigh information was filed, except y could be shewn by a rule of )rd said, that this Amendment as it was but fair to the de some power which might in alert to that protection against of which he must necessarily I now before their Lc.rdships. his intention to press it con- F those whose experience on the ler than his own, yet he sub asure to the same effect ought d. He wished to have the opi ord upon the Woolsack upon SICELLOR admitted that the Ole Lord was deserving of all ,ut that the Attorney-General ed to bring forward his proceed ner as an ordinary prosecutor. Zen adverted to the practice ons for libel, when the course Fcio information, as contrasu f indictment by other persons ; short time on these points, and horities, he said that the Amend which he desired to bestow the .nd should the vast multiplicity _ in his judicial capacity, he was to consider its whole machinery sing the Bill, he should most erance, of the proposed not incompatible with his duty. , ver,-pledge himself to any thing than that no effort of his should zte the ends of public justice,and ientiously deliver his opinion as are was or was not reasonable. ) was willing, in consequence of n the Noble and Leatned Lord, subject with so much candour nendment, which he did in the be able to introduce one better urpose. The subject was one to )usly giveh a good deal of =en; till this night that he had heard tion upon the question of legal volved. It gave him very great st the Noble and Learned Lord it into his consideration before the Bill. kNCELLOR adverted tea mea oduced on the same subject by o had just sat down, and stated it it was not framed in such a man aloous with the jurisprudence of again stated his readiness to co are proposed,'su far as the short -1 his sense of duty permitted, yet Ton himself to promise any result .iactory to the Noble Lotd with If he should fail, hcwever, in onscience the introduction of such Bill, he would assist most readily the particular purpose to the full Id sately go. LANSDOWN expressed hii at the candour evinced by the i 1 Lord on the Woolsack upon this le less gratified at the promise he p , the Amendment before the third 1. I4e thought, however, it would nconvenience if the third reading, e place to-morrow (this day), were allay, as it was impossible that the Lurd could be enabled within a Nil) , his mind sufficiently to its de-, r!.. 'lle Noble Marquis then ob i a determination to consider the ly sic have a good appearance sod that it would be only seemly in proceed pari ratio between the de ! Attorney General. No facility Jed to the one that was not allowed lit would be a manifest grievance, ' e, were an interminable prosecution ig over the head of any British sub he destruction of his peace of mind, of his property. No means ought hat could tend to the expediting of pun these grounds he desired the the third reading till Monday, if, by ensure in question could be prepared curacy. AVERPOOL did not object to the but could see no reason for it, - if the s to be introduced as a separate BilL Caen passed between the Noble Earl, ==lll42` . Wee 7 / ' - . _ : . • I I % ' - - ---_- --- _. ~......—d...... - .. . • !.. - irr:to.l..•;-•(, --- 77.'"' • - - --; the words ivposed Se Ipe Inserted hi the Noble , (Holland), "he considered them at least as vague and , indefinite as thoie to Which he objected. The clause had been framed so as to make a distinction between libels against the indi'vidual characters of Ministers, : and thus* which tended to bring into hatted and eon; ' tem& the Administration. It.was the intention so, eicrisile personal" libels froin the operation of the 1ia1,,,,. The Noble Lord (Holland) latd, on the farmer dis. cusaion *Of the. Bill, called fora definition, because him consiclered * the Words of an elapse too loote,end nerali but he had not proposed any thug viissekk e tended to get rid of the di ffi culty. Hie Woode,woallh • include cases which evidently he did not mean O ievi :elude, The words ~ . seditious libel," aptssnly swipasti itO these writings, which .directif incited to violent (iets, but also' such 'as tended to bring into hatred. and contempt his. Majesty or his sacceper—the Go.. *eminent "in Church or State, oe, either House el: radian:rat. • A hook tending . flash, would beell o t Al r d parsud s lib4 spidtaf sitirdOCorine' vnusi tifUliver ."l.ll sai . A ; age, antra the opition that - every man , •• , right to a mote for a Member of Ilailiarnent.„ iFtu:4ll4. I shii not affect the question at all. • A man nail. , : a political opinion which Play be dangerous er r -•, If. ,surd, but it need not necessarily be a libel, bpi • ra • Man holding these doctrines asserts or mites, thatthe present mode of electing Represeotattess ilk AM haw, (hen he is guilty, of clibel, but it was for the jury to determine, what was or was Tint a seditious libel.- 4ls to the puOishasent of transportation for seven .years, he did. not ,think it too heavy fora man who • was a second time fOund guilty by the verdict of a . ilitr'y of perverting the religious principles, and of 1 disnirbing .the peace of society ; still the Bill left it to the discretion of the Court, under all the ciream• oitances, to inflict or ( is2ense with that punishment., the Amendment of the 4 1 44:b c fe ti lL I O I r d d e (E l li T en s bg u r p o o u n g i h n ) g . Lord LAUDERDALE followed, and in a few war ds 'oppoied• Lord Holland's Amendment. Lord HOLLAND said, that he did not previs 'ously understand, that it was intended to take within the purview of the Bill,- any libel but 'hove which' . brad a tendency to excite tumults and insurrection ; P%st he now found that every case of libel was to be -&ept into the net of this Bill. He had imagined, that it was. only meant to apply to those of a very malignant description ; but as he was now given to understand that every political and seditious libel was to be•included, one or two words would answer the question, as well as a great number. • • Lord ELLENBOT - be libels of superior incae to urdawful talent might bylis . Government into contempt, to•disSuade from acts - violence, more effectually tend , 'he the The LORD elik that there were n• designate a seditious not obviously Specially excepted ; diks, whether they, ifOrtt . tdi IQ as to say, Ai bring into hatred or contempt either House of Par liament." Surely they could never think of wording she Bill in that manner; and yet without such. _a `special excetion, 'the Noble Lord (Heiland) could , never attain his object, of shutting out. all those cams • of libel which he wished to' be excluded from 'the , L . t. /be:Noble and Learned Lord then advaterk: M what hid been said relative to the political °pushpins mf the Duke of Richmond. lie admitted that. - ,book had been received in evidence, on the part dr,. , wr sons indicted for high treason in Westminster; Aut then the Chief Justice had objected to receive it, 440 t merely as being a libel, but being actually trear,, 'Anable, 'until he (the Lord Chancellor) then Attiopey - General, informed the Court, that he never would prosecute a' subject for opinions, and at the- Same time shut out creel hills any, evidence in his favour , • which he might derive horn a work published itirpuility by a Peer of the realm: However, if that hiok wits not properly called a libel, he (the Lord Chancellor) knew nothing of what a libel was. He . could only say, that had he been Attorney General when it-was published, though its author should have been the highest Peer of the realm, he would have considered it an indispensable duty to bring s him to - 'the bar of that House. * Lord HOLLAND said, that the Rill welt mkt — Igict die writings of Mr. • Burke•-...(N0,r0t Itheio a tiel rids). He maintained it wt 111(r. Barkeivade use of the expression, theta her: risre naturally,fond of les; company, andiftitilt ;sa rferenie to a Bill-of W‘conenty and Regulation of Royal gottlehold, would. it be said, that:air- had p. mistake to ; being the • Royai. Pemba 111111.1:011k tunapo. #344/0!, were maily.mera Maio brfoumlit in the pages of Mr. Berke; peed yam tbsia as fere!, aright limaitishjected grase. , so the *milkmen' •of tratepoteeiseit: He Se2= - leave to vote -another passa ge ,tom Mit . sayso, 45,4 f., distress .and dinalleatkap have =.l 61090 a lags portion of ilhelefrjiiitwof the . j* *l .lr o posie, either that-time irellead.Adtniahhihr4 licaomiollata the rep* Olt bietesakol44lol4l7. ten. like othens MIMI* 11 110 2 0-. -, AP14 1 00 , 1! *ma impaled*, Abet drew** Ilia SeMOOMMI stoltA*- S ~ • 4 -_. OROUGH said, that there might • - r malignity, which did ndt directly and tixinultuons acts. A.Writer of ingenuity so endeavour to bliss the . contempt : that while ha §perod ids of vroletece, tits eifeitta ought mitts dissolve the frame ortodesyy . : . NAkiCET t .I.OR was of oaislk i d words. which could be nag S t Dus libel, which would not apply tb: f ly seditious, unless the others waft . I ; and he submitted to their LareA fey, would wish to ha v e the Bill tai, « save and except libels tending Ti__ ad, ;ea. He wisbed - tbit eriarkystmor - atelloome .......--rrtr---..--- ►PIT ._ _ ett for the word " ox,"oehidli , *Ws bine tbOaect of Asl4APlatrip:apply mak posies ' n ow i v oir !re- resdgrieg the Clata&Mlollldefiabie & bill bk - lOggedbir Faillit be 40101; 1 00• 11 . .4 10 liwallie k mil'`• 1W- b e diainctly enderiteed, that tie baitalkabjose to inliqucti***lPPY alalitilia el td dolt - it ttosbeSl Fite all was* which did not rafae 111,1110494)3soli- 1 "-- left ou_tv.4-1444.% olio . ~- the diet . 7 - t the bele tbat implied it dispoorMi to arssitvieleassa-: .; 4 . 00(11.4 1 . , sok% fib 41 )' 1 .. Lord HAAROWBX seamed. tbit tb• trimili .. . - 1 !. O * 19 . 0141 . • to it Jel/ witsior • be- might rea. " Any blesyhepwtw.li4+i► ,G 1 sat •, • I lof osi kW:* ..• -.:, .: • - .- ...1 % ' • a '4eciiiiii billtrrek E " tt ' 4 ' AL I ' .. ' . . - . 1 ' 24 pro► : Lord LIVERPOOLrooda JP% )11 1 • ........ ift & . aseigala - . 41.41. 11 4 t , 11 . . • IMP 's r nos ncle ths'introductiob oft do. 4 46 1 1*"" r • e;'•• • se t jih i f' , 4 the ritsis Los,igtatabtooti... .&w ow" i*sittsok*gvzi, . ..0. , 4, - , • Actitai y•nton'ti•• - . • -;.• • .- -7' A . -• . .--' -. )2 . . . . , .t• .. . _ . . - - FRIDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1819. Lord ER3ll[lll2. and Lord HOLLAND, and it was agreed that the third reading of the Bill shoold br postponed .till Monday, and . that the Amendment should be proposed in a distinct Ptim. LIBEL esixviurrioe amt. The Report on this Bill having been brought up, Lord HOLLAND rose, and said, if he found ithis duty to propose several a lterations, he was not to be understood as having changed, in any respect, the opinion he at first expressed as to the impolicy of the measure itself. It waionot now, however, his inten tion to go further into* the subject than to notice that particular species of offence implied in the term "se ditious,' without proposing any Amendinent with' regard to what were called blasphemous libel; though he could not help again expressing his opi nion that there was nothing in such productions to justify the innovation that had been made in the ea isting laws. Their nature and extent had been greatly exaggerated, but their danger was to beaesti mated only in the psoportion which they bort to other works, while even thus the laws already enacted' would be sufficient to inflict a punishment common- surate with the offence, and mere than commensurate with the danger—(Hear, hear).—But with respect to seditious ,libels, it appeared to him that their cha ' teeter ought to be more accurately defined than'lt bad been hitherto, before it was made a subject for a new measure of penalty. •In fact, no man could possibly tell what the precise meaning of the word " sedition" was, and booksellers might be made liable for works of which they had no cognizance whatever: Thus, by a strange anomaly, the master was made responsible for the act of his servant. He Was not prepared to say that Noble Lords who sup ported this Bill, in its present form, would subject the accused to any more severe punishment than the offence deserved ; yet he could not help thinking, that distinct provisions ought to be made against it : and, with this view, he had .some Amendments to propose, which would all fellow in a consecutive form. —The Noble Lord then proposed that after the words or shall publish" in the preamble of the Bill, 'all the words be left out for the purpose of inserting the Words " knowingly and maliciously," and also that these words be inserted in that part of the Bill re lating to verdicts by default. He should readily withdraw these Amendments for any others of more efficacy, but until such were offered, he hoped he • might be allowed to press them upci , the considera tion of their Lordships. He intended also to pro pose an Amendment with regard to the new punish ment which this Bill provided for ; and that provi sion was calculated to excite alike his suspicion and surprise. The Noble Lord on the Woolsack had said, abet he knew not how far an Amendment which he (Lord Holland) proposed 'tight affect the analo gies of law, but nad their Lordships ascertained how far this new panishment was likely to affect the an*. logics. of law ? Had they ascertained how far it mrht affect the property of the subject? It ma y , • however, perhaps be of a most sale: try nature, and tend to remedy that faulty system of jurisprudence under which Englishmen had hitherto lived; but of this no proof had been given, and would they blindly adept a measure without consideriug how far its Operation might 'be advantageous Or prejudicial to the Public • how far it might affect th e legal r i g hts 9f individ uals? Banishment was a mode of punish ment unknown to the.laws of England, and it was to be considered that the treatment of the person banished must depend entirely on .the terms upon which England might stand with that country to which he was sent. Such being the case, it might naturally he supposed, that if• sent to an unfriendly country, he might experience many severities ; and if this was at all times a strong argument against banishment, it was particularly so at this period, when England, by her interference in the internal concerns of foreign States, hadexcited so many ene mies, who would be glad of any opportunity to rove their resentment. He had read somewhere, in an old book, the name of which he did not recollect, that the reason why banishment had not been in cluded in the Penal Code of England, was, from a jealousy of the interference Of foreign Power; who might employ the persons sent to their states to ex cite commotions against their native country. Was it wise, he would ask,. to sanction a measure likely to produce 'this effect? or were the arg9ments he ad vanced quite chimerical? It was true,. no precedent as to facts could be found in this country ; bat what State had adopted the principle that 'did not afford a facility for the direct interference of foreign Powers, in the politics and , administration of their own ? But the argument 'always urged against Noble •Lords on his side of the Hcuse was, that they were'bound to chew the meats of every measure which came under consideration ; but why, he would ask, was the oars prsiandi IP rest exclusively upon them i' Why were' Noble Lords on the other side to be entirely exempt from it? Yet it would seem they considered them selves so, for they said not one , word -to prove the expediency of this new punishment. It *as evident, however, that the analogy of the laws in this coun try was against it, and one fact would be sufficient to prove it so. Banishment was recognized by the 'law of Scotland ; and some of the Gentlemen of the North were frequently punished by sending them to vend the remainder of their lives south of the Tweed /augh)—which, by the way, they seldom occasion to regret—(A 10). —Their • being only removed to the southern part of the saint Island, was not, however, thought a severe punishment enough for the ends of justice, and a Bill was there fore introduced for sending Scotchmen out'of Eng land to some foreign country yet what era s the fate of that Bill? Why , t o the ver y great joy . of the Northern Exiles, who bad by this time learned tirely to forget their native laml,. it was rejected, I k cause hatiiibment was not recognis e d . by the laws England. • The Noble Lord cencleded, with o roo.) posing . two other Antelidmentsr which wax material consequence. . . . , The Earl of HARR.OWBY, in the ammo( some observations, combated the-arguments of the Noble Lord (Holland), maintaining that the existing laws provided no more severe punishment in cases of mis- i demeanour, than fine and imprisonmeht, to which the pillory might be superadded at the discretion of the Court. This was not sulEkient .for the present, emergency ; Jet theke could he no danger of undue seventy, as the feelings of tin Jury, •if the case was, not of peculiar enormity, • would always incline to wards th e accused. n Actccaused. The Noble Lord read certain extracts pasimed on the subject in 1796; is order to prove that banishment was not unknown Is the law of England ; it being recognized in that Act as a punishment for a repetition of the offence. ' r t, even supposing it were iniknown; .he saw no i con why it ought not to be now resorted to ; and ad been jusdy said on a former night, that the , • .of man was'too short to admit of a repetition of same ponislunept, as an expiation for the same r cc. ~ t would, in his °pillion, bu onle L jussice to ?to transport persons who got*eirdoilybarad y by the most impious and demoraliaieg pursuits. Lord ELLE.NSOROUGH objected to,tbe.words 049ovelagly aid maliciously" being introduced, as . ' in the first Amendment, because it was site it that any roan could publish a libel ir c Opeaail cidentally. Upon the question, whether the word • seditibus" libel, admitted• of a definition, or not ? be thought it did, and should now beg leave to sub - - mit to their Lordships what he thought it strictly im plied. It was this—that the individual was guilty of ledition, who published any Work calculated to bring into hatred or contempt, his Majesty's person, the Government, or either House of• Parliament; or who should excite the People to bring about any ahem- ' tion in existing lavis, otherwise than bylairfal means. Should their Lordships adopt this &initial, it might he inserted in the Bill. . The Earl of LIVERPOOL had no objection to the definition being adopted. ' • . Lord ERSKINE supported the Amendments, and argued against the punishment of transportation, as being unnecessarily severe.- His sentiments were ge nerally opposed to the measure, and he particularly censured the removal , of persons convicted of bias- • phemoiis or seditious libels to infant Colonies,. as likely to corrupt or vitiate the, society in those Esta blishments. The existing laws were,, in his mind, adequate to the proposed'end-#-a power of increased punishment already existed., Of these the Noble and Learned Lord adduced some illustrations. With the Amendment proposed by his. Noble Friend (Lord Ellenborobgh); be disagreed; the latter part of it he conceived to be unnecessary, and he suggested the propriety of its omission. He was adverse to any thing **Nadine . so.dintinish- the Constitutional Rights of she Viola; and tbey.wereeotitled to the dims.' imof :limy =pies, which cook' not be fairly said to be enterad.into with an intention Co subvert the Government of the Country. . ' Earl BATHURST ably. suppOrted the Bill, and argued that its pprposes were called for by the obvie cnis necessity of the case. They were particularly calculated to meet the dangerous offence of seditious libels, but be differed materially from the Noble and Loomed Lord respecting the system of transportation mammy Bay. ' A different species of punishment from that of transportation was provided for the dis eretion of the Judges, and the teems of the additional punishment was most likely to operate beneficially. Upon tan whole, he conceived that no s ound objec ilea was sill'ered to the Bill as proposed. * Lord HOLLAND then rose, and spolm in expla nation ; he supported the olljections adduced by his . Noble Friend (Lord Erskine), and seemed to enter eain strongdoubtsus to the propriety of agreeing to the Meettelseent proposed by the Noble Lord, near him (Lord.Bllenborough). The offence of sedition was not deemed with sufficient distinctive accuracy. Tha.queatiou of Annual. Parliaments and. Universal Suffrage may be discussed abstractedly, without any fair imputation of a design to overt hr ow the esta blished Government. He was against any thing in dieenature of a violent inuendo. The Noble Lord further observed, that the Bill, as it then stood, might apply to writers whose works were calculated to dis seminate knowledge and improve the' human mind. It might prevent the litho*: or punish the exertions of such men a's an Addison or a Swift. It might have the'effect of repressing such genius from the most interesting and useful fields of political or literary discussion, by the dread of an enormous punishment --a punishment of ignominy and exile. With respect to its being confined to small works, be observed, that it was likely to have the effect of driving those ,whose object was to diffuse the principles of sedition or blasphemyi to speculate upon la works, in wrier to accomplish that purpose. r; a writing might be a libil, and not be a seditious libel. Ac cording to the law.of England, a libel was something saber spoken or written which had a tendency to a lispech of the peace—but a breach of she peace was we necessarily sedition. A seditions,libel, be spoke in* of it legally, but in the .common acceptation, lupontsontething sp ok en isc smitten which excited to 'tatoillto :aid had a headiery•ao subvert the -Goiter*. ,mien by violence. ' lie thooght the :olanae ought to 'be .10 Worded, as so k ta, iodate lib* of the latter u, w hich olnindir sinsish IstAlweitairsis Int. •of i di stsr bswompemisdne In .actsinf ion watts==beelet! eive'rsi.:l meat. He • , . _ _ _ for the word 0 readering ti, be distinctly all words whu.._ bob that implied . , . Lord, HAIRRa . . 1 S 1 `.: a