The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1819-12-10 00:00:00

IMPARIAL PAIILIAMEAT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, THURSDAY, DEMMER 9.
PROCEEDINGS AT MANCHESTER.
The Earl of CAKNARVON presented • Petition
I from David Dawsou, Joint and Samuel Dews on,
the father and brothers of El111)11114 Dawson. stat.
Ling, that the said Edruutol Dawson had gone to
Manchester ou the 16th of August lest, to attend •
nieetiorg for Parliatuentery Reform ; that he wee
struck by sabres tear the limiting., and hieing at-
. trendy wounded, was taken to the Mericherter hov-
pitch, where he died. At. inquest was held • upon
the body. but the verdict d:,l riot state either how
or by whom the death was occa►ioned, *ld gh
several persons who had Well the wounds inducted
bad offeted to give their testimony. The Petition
coucluded by prayt.ig that the House would insti-
tute a full and impartial inquiry into the circum-
stances connected will. this trausaction.—Laid ou
the table.
TRAVERSE—EX OFFICIO INFORMATIONS.
'rile Earl of SHAFTEsUURY brought rip the
Report of tale Committee upon the Lill fur ex.
pertitiog trials for incolemeatiors.
The LORD CHANCEI.I.O3i proposed sonic verbal
anteridotents, and one for omitting from the Bull
the words Wales, and the town of Berwick-upon-
Tweed," which were adopted.
Lord HOLLAND rose for 11. e purpose of submit-
ting a clause, of which the purport was, that if the
Attorney-Gent-rel. haying tiled an infurt•tiuu
against any individual. did 'int proceed to the trial
of it within eighteen mouthy after such iiiformatiou
had been filed, it should be considered as null and
void. The Noble 1..0d oh-erved, that it was not
just that every indulgerice should be taken swat•
from the subject, while the operations of the Auto.
esey-General were facilitated.
The LORD CHANCEI.I.OII said, that the clatter
'row proposed by hi• Noble Frirod, was one of very
considerable importance, and merited enrich c•ousi-
derutiosl, but as it struck him, their Lordships
would not act wisely were they to reduce the At.
torney-General to the cooditiou ol• a private prose-
cutor. As the law slow blood, if the Attorney.
Gentilil tiled en ex officio information, be could
nut groerallt• be compelled to proceed to trial.
because the Deremliasit mr such a case would not be
• entitled to cairy down the record to the Assizes.
to e C '•sion of Oyer and %trainer,
or of general Csiol to.lese by the ups-.
cial warrant of the Atturiel-(;erieral. In the
case of the Krug r. --, in the td East, the
quest was argued whether the defesoltiest, iu an
infermatiou hid e.r et/icier could carry down the
; record by way of pryers.). and it watt then decided
that he could nut; but one of the Judges stated,
that there was a mode uf• compellimg the Attorney.
General to proceed to trial ; the delcuidaut might
-move for a trial at bar, and if. on sufficient cause
Aeon, the Court should grata this trial at bar, the
-Attorney-General would be therelly compelled to j
proceed to trial. The Attorney-General, however,
ought not ill all cases to be placed in a situation ;
similar to that of what was commonly called a pri.
vile' prosecutor, for it was hut always possible fur I
him to proceed to trial,frout the abseirceof witnesses,
fur instance, and some other cause+•, which must
occur to his Noble Friend near him (Lord Erskine).
lit cases of a private prosecution, the defendant, M. I
though he may carry down, the record by way of I
proviso. yet must tender himself to trial, he must
•rat vaihiii the range of justice. The Noble rod I
:Darned Lord suggested the propriety of postpeu.
ing the considerate's' of thief clause subse-
quent night, ur moil the third reading of the Bill,
when he promised he should eittleasuur ror much as
possible to assist the Nottle Lord iii the object he
had in view, if on further considerenuri lie should I
God the treasure advisable ; but 6.101.'110i he could
-mot • pledge loripelf filially t•, coucar or the Naha
Lord's. suggestion, he hit it a dirty lie owed to f
every subitct of the reidiu to state to him his opt.
thous upon the causes which, its his aloud, would
render such a measure meripedietst.
Utfd HOLLAND retold) coucurred in the wish
exprevard by the Noble and Leatued Lard, that•

. .
the ConsideredOn of the4leoseshould be pokponed.
and hoped, that as the Noble Lord bad admitted
diet the propos. • was out which well merited
considermtims, they would come to the question
Idevoid of all prejudice, slid honestly endeavoor to
devise the town effectual means of ' doiuK justice to
the people.
The LORD CHAIFF4I,I.OII observed, that a Bill
upon this subject hid oil a former occasion been
submitted to Parliaitreot. That Bill had two oh.
' jects : one. that no isiforinstion should be died for
any °Weiser, after a lapse of three mouths from the
time that the of-Yriice had been committed; 'the
ether, that every inlormatiou should cease and de-
termine unless brought to oriel within a certain
time. Upon the first point it was obvious, that
the limitation was too strict, because ass offence,
which might he very propeily made the %object of
a minima lawman 00000 , might not be discovered
within the narrow time proposed by the Bill, the
other question was, that which was uow submitted
by his Noble Friend.
The Marquis of LANSDOWN expressed his sears.
faction at what had fallen from the Noble and
Learned Lord on the Woolsack, and hoped that
no public injury would arise from postponing the
third reading of the Bill until Monday. if it would
rumble the Learned Lord to carry into effect any
measure founded upon the clause suggested by his
Noble Friend. He thought it desirable that such a
measure should go Girth to the public in connexi 0000
with the present Bill, that wink the subject was de.
proved of au admitted privilege. some protection
would appear to be at the value time landed
sg.this/ the power of the Attorney-General. He
• oh.erved, that the word. of the Learned Lord on
the Woolsack. on a former occasion, with respect
to this Bill, had beets very much inierepresesited.
Hr was made to soy, that he hail founded the prin-
ciple of this Bill upon the castor the sevets Bishops,
"duels cerainly was not the fact ; on the contrary,
the Learned Lord distinctly stated, that if the
Prelates lied pleaded properly they had been very
hardly dealt with. Toe Learned Lord hail also
admitted the existence of a defendant's privilege to
traverse, but had argued upon genetsl grounds the
expediency of taking it away. The Noble Marquis
said it would be but seemly in Parliament,
cud due to public feeling. if they would pro.
reed parr passe iii facilitating the operations of
Government and of ilit Attorney-General, mud in
protectiog the subject from the itieonveisieoce of
linviog a prosecution hanging over him for an later.
minable period. He implored the House tu post-
-1 the 'bird reading of the Bill instil M lay,
if by so slight • delay an opportunity would be
given to the Noble Lord On the Woolsack of pre.
paring the machinery of a measure which must be
acceptable to the public.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL said, that he bud no
objection to the delay requested by the Noble
Miliquis, but ohms ht as did also the Lord Chan-
cellist, that the measure might with better effect
be merle the 'object of a separate Bill.
The Report of the Bill was these received, and
the Bill ordered for a third reading on Moodily
next, when it wits understood that if the Lord
Chancellor found it porcticable and consistent with
I the public interest, he would bring in a Bill for
expediting the trials of iuformatioti filed ex officio
by the Attorney-General.
BLASPHEMOUS AND SEDITIOUS
LIBELS.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY brought up the Re.
port of the Bill for the inure effectual prevention
arid iiiiiiisliment of Blarpheniuut cud Seditious
Libel..
Lord II0L1.•ND Said, as it was. understood that
ally amendments which might be thought necessary
should be proposed on bringing up the Report, he
should now offer some to their Lordships' consi.
&return. In so duoug, however, lie begged it to
be distinctly uoderstood that lie by no means had
conceded the lubjectious he formerly expressed to
the principle or the Bill, but lie felt it his duty, as
a neither of the Legislature, to confine the opera-
tion iii the Bill to that species of offence* which
the framers or it evidently contemplated. Ile
should its no respect alter the Bill. so far as it re-
lated to blasphemous libels, though lie could not
take notice even of them, without sajing that there
was 'Birthing in the extent of the circulation of
blasphemous libels which could justify an altera-
tion in the laws of the country. The account of
their extent wee, he helieved, much exaggerated ;
for when it was stated that bbiephetnous writings had
increased in 'limber, it should be at the seine time
remembered that every other species of writing also '
had increased very much within a certein period.
and that the extent or blasphemous writings ought
not to be estimated by reference to their extern in
former times, so much as its relation to the a t
of all other species of publications. But whatever
may be the extent or danger of these blasphemous
writings, it had never been explaiiird to Ilia House
why the existing laws had nut not been enforced to
their utmost severity against such otkuces. There
existed 110 greater difficulty now than at any former
period in executiug them, and in inflicting upon of-
fenders condign punishineut coinmeusuriste with
their offence, and more than commensurate with
the danger that might result from their dissemi- '
Ostlun ; but with respect to seditious libels, his
object was to coufilie the puoishineut to the
individuals who were really guilty of sedition.
It would perhaps be difficult to define with
accuracy a seditious bbel, but it certainly was
desirable, bona fide, to coofine the operation of 1
the Bill to suck libels as were of a character I
really dangerous to the State. A practice of '
law had prevailed, by which an ;Will/Anal, from
some accidental reletions, or pecuniary circum-
stances. might be retitleted liable to suffer as a
Crilnilial for the sets of another. This was aro alio-
tnuly as it regarded the rest of our law, for in no
other instance is a Masi accountable for the criminal
act of his ermine. Ile Oa, convinced that those who
supported this Bill did not desire to punk!) p-rsons•
who were not actually guilty of writing or publish-
log the libel, amid these it should be ihr endeavour
of Pailiameid to save from so severe a penalty. Tu
attain this object, he should propose several amend.
menu. lie the first piece, he islootild move an
alieratiou in the presitible, -by introducing the ,
word. •• person. knowingly and maliciously pub..,
lishing." lu hire nine, page 'We,. he should I
also propose the insertion of the words. " know.
iugfy and aidliciuublx eudeavouriug to exam lii!

Majesty's subjects to subvert by rioleaco the Go.
imminent and Constitution of the seal., au by Isis
estehlished." This would be more Necessary. as
every. libel of • political stature might .be • readily
constiutid to.be 'editions. The neat Paint to which
he should direct the attention, might prnbehly be
considered much more important. It was his in-
tention to propose the °missing' of the punishment
of heasishusent—a punishment new in the history
of English legislation, wiltuown to our 'ancestors,
arid 110 W prOpOled without reference to its effects
Up 011• the policy of the century. the state of our
foreign relations, the property of the individual's
trimly, and the gruersl analogy of our liters.
This Bill, he said, excited his suspicion as well as
his surprise. How had they ascertained whet effect
the Bill would have upon the ansiogy of the law,
or how collected the possible effect it might pro.
duce, by exposing a British subject to the caprice
or power of a foreign government ? Possibly such
an alteration in the law might he of advantage.,
but no proof had been offered of it ; and it was not
wise in Parliament blindly to adopt an i 0000 ovation,
without receiving a certain assurance that it would
be attended with advantage. banishment he
had 14 particular objection us a mode of punishment,
on account of the inequality with which it affected
different persons, snit inure partieulary if its ope-
ration must depend upon the enmity or favour of•
the neighbouring potentates, to whose dominions
the exiles might he sent. 'Elie House too should
consider the cousequeoces of causing a British sub-
ject to cast his eyes towards any foreigu power, as
being likely at some time to tither him a place of
refuge, as it must induce him to court the favour
of a foreign potentate. and facilitate the interfer-
ence of foreigners iu the affairs of this country.
If they looked through the long course of history,
they would find that never did a free State admit
the penalty of beilialliinent that did not feel the ef-
fects of foreign interference. It was herd that in an
ovation proposed from the other side, the one,
probandi, with regard to its ill consequences and
inconveniences, should always be thrown upon those
who opposed it. The case was the reverse when-
ever any proposition came from the. side of the li
House at which he sat,lfor then a cry was Moonily
set up requiring them to shew not only all the ad-
vantages that might be derived from the measure
proposed, but also the incouveniences that were
felt in the system proposed to be altered. The
principle of banishment, however, was so contrary
to their general enexims, that when in the last Sea-
sing, a Bill was proposed relating to the banishment
of persons front Scotland, it was rejected. The
House were aware that benishmerit is a punishment
recognised by the law of Scotland, so that some-
times the gentlemen of that country ore exposed
to the severe end creel punishment of bring sent
to the southern parts of the island.—(a
It, however, having occurred, probably to some
pert lawyer in Scotland. that this punishment,
whatever it might have been in former times, had
now lost souse portion of its extreme severity, a
law was proposed, empowering Sheriffs or other
Magistrates to seize Scotch exiles, if found in Eng-
land, mid either to send them back to Scotland, or
to Botany Bey ; but their Lordships threw out the
Bill, on the ground, no doubt, that the law of
England not recognising the puuisbrurot of banish-
ment, should not be ancillary, in that respect, to
the law of Scotland.—(Hear.)—The Noble Lord
made a few remarks upon the minor clauses of the
Bill, and concluded by mum% the first amend
meta.

The Earl of lIARROWDY said, that, by leaving
the Bill as it now stood wait regard to a seditious
libel, no disadvantage could possinly arise to the
subject, fur it was difficult to induce a Jury to find
a verdict of guilty, except iu very strong cases,
and where the seditious intent was sufficiently ins.
infest. He admitted that, in the Act of 1791,
which excepted a certain description of libels out
of the general mass, the libel was distinctly set
out as •• maliciously and advisedly bringing into
contempt his Majesty's person and Government,
and the constitution of the realm as by law
establi►hed." The Noble Lord (Holland) had raid
that banishment was unknown to the laws of Lug.
land; hut he would find In tint very Act to which
he referred that the ti rot offence was highly peon!,
and that on a second couviction it was discretionary
with the Judges to impose either a very lung impri.
moment, benishment, or trausportation. He argued
that imprisonment and flue alone were nut an ede-
quote punishment fur the repetition of the offence
of libel, fur what was there to prevent an individual
from repeating his offence every day or every week,
mid could it be said that adding to the term of his
imprisonment would operate as a correction ?
No ludividwil could he a greater enemy to society,
than one who was constantly aiming to alienate
the minds of the people from the Government of
the country, and the only inealiv of correcting the
evil was to get rid of the individual. The objec-
tion made by the Noble Baron to the punishment
of banishment, on the grounds of its unequally
affecting different individuals. could have no weight,
because it might with event propriety be said of
I every other species of punishment.
Lord ELLENsoaounu said, he did not see the
expediency of introducing in the preamble of the
Bill the words •' knowingly mid .nialicumaly,"
because he did out perceive how any man could
write a seditious libel fortuitously, or publish it
accidentally.—(Hear, tear )—Thrre seemed to be
a difficulty about detiueiug a seditious libel ; lie
should submit one, which it was leis intention to
move ►hould be inserted to the Bill. The Noble
Lord theist read a paper to the following effect :--
•' any person shall publish any writing, cal-
collard to bring imu contempt the King, or
either House of Parliament, or tee stir up the peo-
ple to effect any alteration in the law of the country
by other than lawful means."
The Earl of LIVERPOI/L said, lie had no oh*.
time to the introductinis of the liars:44e read by the
Noble Lord, and suggested that the name of the
Prince Regent ►hould tee inserted•in
Lord ERSKINS said, it was
argue upon the general principle of the Bill, on
which he had already expressed his opinion, but to
ediiiiiir himself solely to the umemlments. The
Noble Earl opposite had, ens the former ought of de-
bate, mistaken his observations resiwcting
bliisphe-
mous publicatious. lie had said that in
mous libels there was nu distiection, hut in this he
did nut refer to intellectual publications re.
'pectins religtoss, winch might be - mums by

.
good and moral, or by bed :ea, but %ploy to those disgusting, hose, and proaigete *to!.
I' of which the manifest inteut was to degrade
gion end the Divinity, which could lint br writ;l:l
iu
sdbilyiscigto7sdas tsemitiahe en;cielel.thdt"}"iteethoifeerhlst°(l it:le:116;11 so to b
muchelit,ietit... down lied
t could alai
by attained by the present ; the piiiiishuuot
proposed was Cis **ere, and the Bill 'solid recast
motto its framer. Transportation, oi,„
properly applied, web, he admitted, a very proper
kind of plissishnient '; for, Its in the
cal amid
the imptinties Cast out of our ',donjons. *lira strewed over the face of the earth, c..vered it with
verdure anal fertility, so the removal of the err."
she society lhry had t`ojui_
° up new cuuuhlrr, and, br
ci their nu{u*fry ought Ix
F f:le:et:L(7 nvomugupurtliolaPeitelyiejeicipcselerarfhe;ref
memos of human happiness But was it wise police
to send to those new col 'es persops of a chsracti4
likely to pollute them, rod sow io their iisfaut *ti-
mely the seeds of discontent? By for law, sr it
now stood, the Courts were possessed of sufficient
power to inflict as severe, or perhaps a severer
nient upon libellers than intrisportatiou. If a 111111.
.once convicted, should offend again, he 1/1/111;1
Weill 10 set his force swoon the law, and i.o MCI
ever yet tried his strength against it who did
not eventually find himself worst, d in the rowe.t.
If a 1113111/UWIMM a wicked and malicious 'Mei,
for it must be both fur the purpose of Ins coarse-
lion, he may for the recoud offence be tratislioned
for seven years. Where was the 111•CCO•My fur this
new punishment, when by the laws, as they stood,
they could inflict • severer punishintart, that of iiii-
primomeot for seven years ? lie would ask. was it
toot worse for a man to be confined in a gaol, shut
out from society, tint to be sent to Bohm, A,,...
where he might have comforts and ads citagers which
in a prison he would be deprived of ? Would it be
fit to send a min who was convicted of publishing
an infamous blasphemy to olie Ll' the iufaut colo-
nies, to spread the contagion of his inaligaJity
He remembered a case. when he was at the hoer, of
a man who was convicted of a libel. which wills pub-
lished in his newspaper, which did oat originally
appear in it, as it was re-published from alother
paper. When the defendant was brought nip fur
judgment he offered to produce to the Cowet the
most positive evidence that when the libel was poll.
halted lie was raging mad, front the effects of a
inaliguaut fever; jet afterwards be, the Noble
Lord, had the vetratiou to see him stand in the
pillory for that offence. And why did the ',earned
Judges refuse to listen to that eviderice ? Because
by the verdict of the Jury it was put on the record
that he had done it wilfully and maliciously. l'.nere-
fore was not the intendment of his Notile Friend
necessary ? If a 1111111 thought proper to keep him-
self secreted, and sends forth his poison throsegli
publisher day after day, God forbid the latter
should not be answerable. Suppose, for instance,
the Constitution was violated by an Act of I?arlia-
mem, and a matt honestly wrote hit. color' .sgainse
that Act of the Legislative, sod it was by a Jury
to b
such
afouneilid a n
call to their" Mile dil ali minds
so secondi lisllibeemel ow'
oiotf•ut Itr:ltr -
bookseller,e
who, from the nature of their basi-
not
what was seditious or what was not, cud lie was not
apiessid'evc:iui lidf coread
uld,ewsOerY lookuldun tbethatlYilertlibiohed.
decide
allowed to say hr knew nothing of its contents or
to prove it—how were they to carry the ;punish-
ment of bonishment into effect I—how were- they
to enforce it ? We had our alien law., and on hid
pro
country. It was true, bainsinnent was one ell,
and they might riot like vs give
furetiegcntio7utroltrisesn% an who was banished fro m his
punishments of Scotland, but it was not much
dreaded. As to himself, he was tratisported front
there SI years, and he never considered it *sere.
City.—(4 laugh.)—The Noble Lord• lied riot kseen
able to prove that the low, as it stood, was not suf-
ficient for the punishmetit of the crimes co, item-
plated in the Bill, and until they had drop./ so,
they ought not to have recourse to new and unmied
ones.

Earl BATHURST said, it was only sufficient to
state the case of Mr. Carlile to shew that the)
as it now stood, was tut sufficient ; fur after t o•-
victiat he continued to publish not wily wha t be
was convicted for, but others, if possible, of a
worse nature. It was slid by the Noble and I ,earo-
ed Lard, that if they transported a ir ,no trs
New South Wales, that was guilty of puble sluing
blasphemy, how would they preveut him fr• No pub..
licking there ? fie would tell Inni that tl. at w^uld
be the last place that ruck a publication would he
attempted in. He had said imprison/lie, it for life
would be a severer punishment than ti snsporta.
lion. It would be • good argument Cu• 14 greater
punishment, if the present Bill did iv st gi►e the
Judges the discretion of fiue. Parthenon ei,t, trans-
portation, or banishment. 'Flue Noble BigrOn had
said this measure would prevent discs ,halms; It
would do no such thins, but it would make men
careful how they wrote either blaantir my or
sedt-
tton. For these reasons he would oppose Inv
sinendateuts.

1 The amendments, as suggested by 1 ,ord Holland
in the preamble, were then put and to glover-I.
Lord HOLLAXD said; he could slot to It, thiaskiug
that there was a great difference bat /fret' publi-
cation which tends to bring evernme ill into disre-
pute, and that %Inch recommends !. overthrow If
it by force, therefore they ought nut to be visited
wills the same punishment. Every one that knew
bun, klIeW hr was nut foetidly to ann jai pair:antral+
and uuit•rrs.ll suffrage ; yet there t sere melt 111 61141
out of• Parliament that thought utter Insist. A Noble
and !unarmed Friend of his, now • un more, hail
brought a Bill into that House i or that purpose,
and had written several pamphlets in support of it,
yet it had never been suggested t• net her was disaf-
fected—then, why should a man t .ecummending it
now he liable to the effects of this Bill ? Fits
lineation was, that only those should he liable
which were maliciously intend eel. He recol-
lected the smile or. tl e Noble Earl (Liverpool)
when he asked, would they s end men of ar-
dent minds to Botany Bay ? I . would now ask
would lie send such men a j Swift and Addi-
son there ? He would pledge himself to lied in
the writings of Mr. Burke some Passages that would
come under this Bell as it it • arid. He celled ou
their Lordshilat• to consider of the situation they
placed booksellers ita by such a ,claduitiou u this iu

■

■

no Act of Parliament. ne did not hold ti the par.
ticular wards of his amendment. but would not .
withdraw it without something similar was pro-
posed.
The Earl af Haaaowev spoke in explanation.
sod recommended it to the Noble Lord (Holland)
to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of LIYIRIDOOL said. he rose for the
purpose of giving his optuion on the amendments
of the two Noble Baron's. On a former night. lie
was told that some definition might be given to the
class of libel which was to come under the severer
puui>hmeut, He was ready to admit that a libel
against himself. in his official capacity, or seainst
soy td. his Noble Colleagues, although it might be
a ..re wicked publication, yet it would not be se.
ifiliuus against the State. There was no doubt
bet a publication tending to bring iuto contempt
the Crown, the State, or the two Houses of Parlia-
ment. would be a malicious and seditious libel.
The Noble Lords opposite were mistaken, for the
Bill did not go to create any new law of libel. it
a„,ife„,,cied a new 1 brava fur • second offence.
If a book was published which went to bring Par-
liament into disrepute, it would be liable to pro..
secution. The question was, whether, after • con-
viction fur a second offence, the Court should nut
have the power of superadding the greater punish.
ineut ?
The Ent of LAUDERDALE allowed that the
Noble Earl had put the question on the proper
around. Then suppose he was to say (+aid the
Noble Earl), that the manlier of their conductir.g
Nosiness in the House of Commons only tended to
load their Lordship: table with useless papers at the
earl of the Session, he was to understand it would
be a libel.
Lord HOLLAND said he must have been under •
mistake during the discussion, for if the word is se-
ditious" was to stand in the Bill for every class of
libel, the word had better be out altogether.
Lord ERSKINE and Lord ELbsosoaouou seve-
rally extilained.
Clio I.ORD CHANCELLOR said. he was placed in
sinwular situation, for after being told there war
',Wiling so dangerous as to leave the word " sedi-
tious" out of the Bill, he was their told it was
better to have it out altogether. If it stood, and
lie was charging jury fora publication that tended
to bring either House of Parliament into con-
tempt, lie would tell them that it was a seditious
He had heard a great deol about the case
of the Duke of Richmond, and it was not
necessary for him to say that any thing said in
that House was Hot • libel. He recollected when
the trial came on at the Old Bailey, for the
publication of the pamphlet, he tendered the
pamphlet in evidence, and the Chief Justice
acid, now can you tender me in evidence a book
to prove a libel which contains high treason, and
the defendant was srquitted. He w.s sure his
Noble arid Learned Friend must recollect the cir-
cumstance, es lie was opposed to him ; and alter
the trial was over, when he (the Lord Chancellor)
was -obliged to snake his way home as well as lie
could, they took the horses from his Noble and
Learned Friend's carriage, and drew him home,
and he never afterwards saw his horses.
Lord HOLLAND contended, if the Bill wan al-
lowed I. eland as it then was, no man would be
*ere flota the effects of it—Mr. Burke would not,
if he was living, for there was the following pas-
sage•its firs works : All kings are natural lovers of
lov.- company." He would ask, did this not tend
to bring the monarchy into contempt, which was a
seditious libel ?
After some conversation, in which the Earl of
tivEntionb, Earl of DARNLEY, and Lord Hot.-
LAND took a part, Lord HOLLAND', amendment
was pot and negatived.
Lord ELLS:I,4I3OEOIIGB', amendment was then
put and carried.
The Earl of CARNARYON moved, as an amend-
ment, that the term of banishment should be
limited to seven year., which was negatived.
The Bill was then ordered to be engrossed, and
to he read the third time on Friday.
The End of CARNARYON said, it was his inlets-
lion to have introduced a clause into the Bill, by
way of amendiurot—that the duration of it should
be limited to a certain period.
The I.ORD CHANGst.t.oa observed, that the
Noble Eel would have the opportunity of pro-
posing it on the third reading of the 8111.