The National Register.
London, England, 1819-12-12 00:00:00

;•

DOUSE OF LORDS.
MONDAY, DEC. 6.

After the lintel Chancellor had • taken his Peat,
',Fitzgerald and two latches, the children of Lord Edward bite •
• 'eel lattended to take the oaths of allegiance and fidelity, in
. a
CODOCtillerCe of the Act of last Session removing the attainder
iron) that noble family.
lix-urricto INronmA T 10745. &e.—Viscount SIDNIOUTH
laid on the table the pipers unwed for by the Marquis of Lans-
downe, respecting Ea-officio Jaformations vie. an account of all
Informations between lelB and 1819, stating proofs,
arid what proceedings were had on the same. Aiso an ACOOUh
of the nuinhet of lielielniente within the same period On di
motion of the Noble Viscount .the pipers were ordered to be
printed.
LIBEL BILL.
Viscount SIT/MOUTH rose to move the second reading of a
Bill to prevent tire extension of blasphemous and sedition libels.
The object at' the Bill was to effecteally suppress such libele by
giving the Court power to encrease the punishment in cases where
persons are convicted of the offence a second time. It did not go
tap encreaae the punishment in the first instance. having on a
Cornier occasion stated the ground on which the Bill was introduced
the Noble Viscount omitted a rceapitulatton. He concluded by
moving the seetioil reading of the Bill. •
Lord ERSKINE said be should trouble that House with but
few observations. It appeared to him, that the circumstances
did not justify the proceedings, yet they were tat] it was expedient.
The Bill gave 130 explanation in die preamble to justify a measure
Of Go much importance to the liberty of die subject. The Noble
Viscount was as bold in his speech as the bill itself. No case he
could be strong enough to warrant the chains they were about to
hints on every liberal writer. The Noble Visccenit said the bill
applied only to seditious and blasphemous libels. There were
wiany shades of what was termed blasphemy, but 110 one could
depre:.ate more than himself the attempt made under any doc-
trine. to rob the poor and contented Christian of his last solace, the
dependence he had 'won lie beheld such attempts with
horror, and if he could suppose the bill would do any good with
a view to the prevention of the offence, he should not only go
with the Noble Lords, but run before diem to pas, it. It was
useless, because he was enabled to say upon experience. that the
existing law was etrong. enough to extinguish the evil. Sonic
years ago another spnees of libel was common. ile alluded
to horrid obscene publications, which found the way into boarding
schools, corrupting and poisoning the minds of youth. On that
Occasion, he represented a society of gentlemen, who laudably
11.2111 C to the resolivion to stop the destructive flood of contamina-
tion. He stood forward as Counsel for the Society, in the King's
Bench, and he could say, some of the baneful publications were
us natiecon? as the filthy productions of French obscenity. pull-
lished and solid in the Palms Royale. Those libels were put down '
by the law. (Hear, hear!) The much rei end Doctor Porteus,
Bishop of London, and other persons equally eminent, aexisted
in putting tnein down, and surcevtleml in their endeavour. Why
could not the Attorney Gener.ii, with the public purse ai his corn-
niami, put down the libels, now the subject of complaint ? The
fact was, there had been no seasonable effort to check the publi.
cations which the Government then so much deprecated. •• The
Age of Reason," when first published. was not powecuted, but
Sir S. Shepherd. the Attorney General, preferred proeette
tins Mr. Hune'a parody, which few persons would consider the
worst of the two libels. The Law did not define what seditious
libels were to be punished with transportation.—A thotnend
se-
ditimu libels might he written by men of wisdom, without
knowing it; and the Lords did not want proof at the present
day, that a prosecution for some libels only increased the sek
and extension oftliem. The Lords opposite could never mimeoe
that the people of this country would cease to animadvert on the
laws, and they ought to take care that they did not give (neon.
ra,gement to libellers by the very means they proposed to adopt
for keeping them in check.—lf they punished a man once for the
publication of a libel, and lie afterwards thought fit to try his
strength with the law by a second publication, he increased hie
punishment. Every copy of a libel published after conviction
rendered him liable, as the law stood, to additional punishment.
That being the ease, what ground was there for the infliction of
new punishment' If the Government had not inbreed the law,
the omission did not furnish- any fair pretence for making a new
law. Believing. as he did, that the existing law was sufficient to
cheek anti punish libels of every description, be could never
assent to the principle of the Bill.
The Earl of I 1 AllItOW BY said, he had much respect for
what fell from ti:e Noble Lord, but on this occasion he could not
admit his reasoning.
'Die Marquis of LANSDOWNF. considered the Bill destruc-
tive of the liberties of the Constitution. It teas a Bill to apply
the yuniehment of felony to misclemennovu It was a pith:el:wont
that was itnerpial, falling on some more heavily than inhere. In
respect to die Bill, tee punielnuent of transieweation for libel
would lead to didiculty on the part cf the law officers. They
would find it difficult to procure convictior.s. It w mild increase
the disinelinatioa of Jurors to give those convictions they com•
plained had been withheld. Ile alludee, by way of example to
the present situation of an lionotirable Baronet, the Member for
Westminster Ile asked die Noble Viscount whether he sup
posed in caee the Hon. Baronet was tried for a second libel
that a Jury would give a verdict might send him to Botany
Bay ? Soca eeses would wino, alid instead lot' convictions the
Jurors would give acquittals. Ile opposed the Bill in its then
state.
Lord ELLEN BOROUGH in a. maiden speech supported the
Bill.
Lord HOLLAND admitted dia. the Noble Lord who spoke
last had stated the intellieibe groural for the eiloption of the Will.
'the Noble Viscount who brought it in said it was to pnerve
die Liberty of the Press. His eznerence had enabled him to
urider.taad Parliamentary logic. W lweever he Lad been asked
to pay money, in compliance wail souse Parlianietitary measure.
the suneinent almost invariably was It is to protect your
property." In the present instance,. the attempt to destroy the
Liberty :of the Press was termed, in peril:tine:eery logic. an
effort to preserve that libetty. The Noble lord could not admit
the people were so aboutinebly wicked as they were described.
The people of England ware a Christian, moral people, and not
easy to be corrupted by publications which carried bane and anti-
dote. Five years ago the table of that House wes.covered with
Petitions fist the ere/141110f CillltellCS and Chapels. Os that oc -
elision the PeutionersQcre called misled people—misled by re-
ligion ?—Now they were told th. people were en irreligious, diet
it was necessory. Perhaps the intention of the Noble Lords was to
follow the system of I Miser Chnewell, by forming a sort of Spi-
elute] Governtuent. They had heard of the diectetionaty pewee
of the Judges, but that w is a June of dependence galling to the
mind of an Englishman. I. corn the dine of Lord Somers to
Mr. Burke's time. there had :iot, pedlars, been a man in public
life who had avoided writing it libel two ac three times. l
Dryden, Pope, Swift, Addition, and.9.toel were libellers, and
had Steel Kind under the operation of a Bill like that before
the House, he wool,l no doubt have been sent to Botany Bay.
The Noble Lbril, in a io-ecli of eoleeiderahlelangth, strenucualy
a the principle of the Bill.
PCI Bill was subnquentiy oppomcd by Earls Grey and Bles-
and supported by the lead of Liverpool, and
NCELLO K. said, Obit lie conceived
Sim measures upon ohiclitibis noble friend who had just
art down bad conntienie with sa notch severity, were
essentially necessary as il.e preset ration of the free cost
/11 01 111110 1.3111.:(1 J.

;.~:,~-

• .. • _
v

' .

THE N.

The DUKE
a few wog ohi nu w

verpool) on the sell
Laneasterian syst‘...
defended it when attacked, and he would take the liberty
of saying, that-the practice of teaching under it was
founded on the strictest 'Principles of religion and morals.
To the Search for arms' bill, and the training bill, he
would, with a few exceptions, give his consent; but the
present bill should have his strong opposition. To the
principle of the whole system he objected, and lie would
tell why, moat of the information on which ministers act-
ed, it would appear by the papers on the table, hail been
received before the piorogation of parliament in July.—
Should ministers, therefore, have allowed the house to se-
parate witliotit mentioning the danger, and proposing their
remedies? His other objection to the seditious publics.
tions bill was, that he conceived the necessity for it ori-
ginated in the neglect of the ministers ;o prosecute; and
lie would not eueourage that neglect by giving them
additional powers. He hoped lie 11.411 expressed his sett-
: timeuts wide the courtesy *Well belonged to the house,
but, nt the same time, with that firmness which n convic-
tion of their truth warranted him in using. (Hear, hear.)
The bill was then read a second time, without adi vi-
'lion. It was o.dereil to lie committed for to-morrow, and
the repnrt to be -cerived on Thai-Wry.
The Report of " The Search for Anus Bill" went through a
similar Debate.
A short conversation then (melted, in which Lord Er.
skine, the Margnis of Laosilown, Lord Sidononth, and the
Earl of Dm nley, took part; when an amendment, pro-
posed by the Litter noble lord, extending the time for
bringing actions against the magistrates for any alleged
misrondect hi the execotion of this act, from three months
!,1 six, was .:egatived without a division. The report was
then-received, and the bill ordered to be engrossed.
The. report on the training bill was likewise received.
Adjourned at 11 o'clock.
ToE9ol Y. DEC. T.
The Travers Bill passed through a Committee, and was re-
potted to the Home.
Lord HOLLAND presented a Petition from the Lord Mayor,
Aldermen, and Commons of the City of London, against the
restrictive measures then before the liouse.—The Petition was
read, and onle,eil to lie on the table.
The Arms Bill vets read a third time and passed.
Lord SIDMOUTH then moved the third reading of the
Training to Anus Bill, which was accordingly read and passed.
The House went into n Committee on the Rill to prevent the
publication of blasphemous Anil seditious libels.
Viscount snamouTti, 1t the said Committee, proposed
several amendments, one of all eh appeared to us to promte, that
every onler for search and seint aof books is to contain the name
in' the person whoe: books are to be seized. Defendants, in cases
of libel, ere to he furnished with a copy of the indietn:ent at the
public expoice.
The Bill, aiei the arneetlinents, was agreed to, and ordered to
be reported to the House.
The House adjuumed to Thur d
THURSDAY. DEC.O 9.
MANCHESTER MEETING, Ac.

The Earl of CARNARVON presented a petition from David
Dawson. John Dawson, and Samuel Dawson yeomen in the
County Palatine of Lanmster. The petitioners described than
selves to be good and In) at men. Their brother. Edmund
Dawson, went to the Manchester Meeting the 16th of August,
and was wounded on the occasion. lie was taken to the
Manchester Infirmary, whew he died. The Jury which set on
a view oldie body, according to the statement of die Petitioners,
could not :ay how he Caine by his death, notwithstanding the
Petitioners Mut evidence to rove he was cut down by the
cavalry. The Petitioners prayed for full and ample inquiry
into the transaction. Tho petition was ordered to lie on the
table.
TRAVERSE BILL.
The Lord Cif ANCELLO It rose on the Order of the Day
for receiving the Report of the Committee upon this Bill, and
observed. that he should take the liberty to state his intention
to move several amendments. The Noble and learned Lord
then intimated that the words " Berwiek-upon-Tweed and
Wales" shoulo. be omitted, :IS being uzineccssary.
Lord HOLLJAN 9 rose to produce ei amendment of hih
own, of considerable importance. The prtictice of stitlering
prosecution, instituted by the Attorney-eieneraLjn hang over
a man's head, was more in his opinion than the law oagilt to
tolerate; and with a view to redress die evd, the Nobie Lord
proposed to introduce the follos'ng amendment :—••• Be it
fortaer enacted, that med.-, ashy sr-officio inforinanoti, filed
against a defendant, Ise net Imane..t es trial within 11l months
atter eding the same. in. fortinir proneelions shall twase:"
The Lord Cll A NCEI.I.O it ~id in the case of the King v.
Nt'l/otigal. 2 East, the I uri•to.n was assisted, whether the
Attorney-Gcnoral tantld be compelled to go to trial. The
Judge; were of opinion he could •.,st. but y heltl•an a remedy,
that the defendant might have a trial az bah The .Noble and
Learned Lord did not mean to say that was situation hi which
the subject might to be plume'. Ile should submit, however.
to the Noble Lord, before the third reading of the Bill, how
far the chute proposal was possible Of net. At that. time he
was not prepared to agree to roe clauses •
The Lord CIIANCELLOR propeed to read the Bin n third
time to-morrow. It was not certain that all the machinery of
law, applie•.able to the subject, could revolve in his mind by
to-nortow. If, however, it was not in his power to render
assistance, with a view to the coils; aerator rot Cue !portion, so
far as it was connected with this Bill, tie would give it in the
discussion of any other Bill any Noble Lord 'night introduce to
the house. And he said, it would be lit matter ter a separate
Bill, brought in with as little delay as possible.
Itepoit was received, and the Bill ordered to be read a
third time on Monday.
LIBEL BILL.
Lord 110LI.AND rose, oti die orthir of die day for receiving
the Report of the Committee on the Bill to prevent the publica-
tion of Blasphemous and Seititious Libels. Wiladv t the dan-
ger might have been there was no
spretence whatever far saying
the existing law should not be ILK ted to the evil. Wien respect
to sedititus lihels, the Bill was totally silent on the question—
What is a .seelitious libel ? A seditious libel nee never clearly •
been defined. A cletir itelinttiod of the olleilee .iiight to he in.
traduced into the Bill. A practice might prevail its i bookseller's
shop of telling all looks sent by tespectutile emboss, lid a man
alight be puontied forselling a libel which he had never known to
be a libel. llow was is hook eller to know wive:het it was a libel or
not In oilier incomes the master ea..; made responsible for the
misconduct of his ,Seirtiritsi ;nem' those who were not guilty
tit writing and publishing libels wet, :...,tile to ponislimeni.
:The
Noble Lane yrtipoAd to introilade the stoles •• kno,ingly and
mil iiciutisly, in order to eliara,ierize the offence. The Bill
also introduced a species of pr,anhmcnt thikelown to the cauntry,
namely the le AV td b mixt:rat-rd.
'l' he Earl ie. II A artr)Will supported Cie knovi.ions of the
Bill. Ilitnislortent wet a good method of g:tting nil of those
who elitat bed sit, pub.i c peace.
Lord ELLESIieStOUGaI expressed nn origin/11. that toe
• seditious and blasphemous libeL ought to be clearly defined.
Ifs suggested something like the fellow:lig woras, by way of
1 etnition

VF.ftMOL h „,. e'..lertioa to the .5..,_
prop:v.:l ity rite Not& Lord, with a view to definition, prov:att
the Name of the Prfficie Segett was introdued.
Lord MUSK I 'isfiLpbjected to the punishment of transporta-
tion. It was ilWieto send to the Colonies libellers, who
would not fail to corrupt * minds of t;.z colonists to the
injury of the Mother Country. Seven years' iinierisoninent in
England would be more sirre, and a better mode of pu-
nishment.
After some further debate the Report was received, and the
third reeling appinnted.
The Report of the Viury Trailifil. was also received.—.
Adjourned.
FRIPA V, 9,0. 10.
TR LINING TO AR. lill.L.—The Chancellor of
IL the Ceche pier "d Ari -M kralt m MUI unOters fro the COOWS
brought up the I I, :Arry,,Bill, which was received
by the Lord Cha llor, and the amendment. aaeed to.
LIBEL KILL —The Earl of CAIO Alt VON rose, on
the order of the day for the third reading of the Bill to
prevent the Publication of blasphemous and seditious Libels,
and having called the at Polite House to the efect
it would have neon the I f I press, expressed a
decided opinion that.usylsA.. .iited at all by Par-
liament, ou'zht to.' • lotion. The Noble
1,4,1 concluded his ~ii by king an amendment,
limiting the (hit mho, oft flO years.
Visvono(..h II) NI 01.41fil °repots the umendinein, 9n the
ground of the mi.chief i 510,211 Iced follon el the publication
of the most atrocious liik.l3. It was iu his opinion, the duty
of P.irliaatent to clued( to.the utmost extent Abitt turrepl ~r
cnatamin:ilivn Which had too hie.; 'nen 'Alp. to ottefrte•
on the Ottlnie miiiil:-.1 sul
E (iROSN' LNIIR 01;worted the amendment.
Thlliiikeke of WEL° NOTON spoke in favour of the
wippi
Bill. -- • Grace coasidered it a neve.sury measure.
The' blip of LAN I) %FF expressed a lame that the
Bi old prove a cheek to the ditsetnination of tujr-
ehtlitCWl doctrines, which had of late too much disturnd
the pM•t e of society.
Atter a discur-ion of considerable length the amendment
I was negatived without a division, and the !louse adjouined
i till to-morrow.

' • 1
4.).141ft a'r
Pliord"""- •••

. !` . • • ..
It.
c •
- 4 - . r
. .0 • , .
N\ \ • ta b ‘ • • • .
•••••s , . . . ,
. . • -.. . . -i ,
. • •
.. •-...
r ATIONAL REGISTER. \ 411/0102... C. It
...—"....—.
- -
of SUSSEX could not help saying ' " Any publication calculus's! to bring into ilsrepute and con-
tempt los Alsj's Gun:mitten. et of Pent,
what had fallen from the noble earl (Li. .
The I or to bring intoesty contempt the Clristthe Musesian Religion as by arliam
law
object of the education of the pour. i established."
stem he had always patronized; he had The Earl of I, I vERphoL h:vl nn oir•erion to the words
- . . •*" , . - . . .- - .