The Sun.
London, England, 1832-05-22 00:00:00

those rights for 'which the Attormy- General prafese
himself the advocate.—(Hear, hear.) The Press be,'
taken the liberty of d;ctetitie to the House of Peels
manner in which they should act, and to threaten the Crox, n
with extermination, unless it gave way to the free exerci
of the opinion of all others but itself. The Press, too, hoe
forbiddeo. either House of Legislature to exercise its
sure against that oee-sided leader of public opinion.--
• (Hear.l Of all the tyrannies that had ever existed, the
tyranny of military despots—the tyranny of the Rornish
Church, of all tyrannies, civil or religious, the greatest
was that of the Press, which, while it proclaimed freedom
of opinion on one side, threatened with danger, disgrace
and death, those who should use that freedom of opinion
on the other.—(Hear, h.-ar, hear.) He appealed to every
man whether that was not the moral and practical object
of the present state of the Press, and of the Attorney-
General's conduct with respect to it, whose argument
amounted to this, that because recently there had been a
great degree of excitement in the public mind, because the
liberty of the Press, at first not attacked, had afterwards
grown larger, and then become monstrous, and from
monstrous had become overwhelming ; and because it had
become ov,rwhelining, they were to give way to it at once
--(Hear.) He hoped that, at least, the Queen's Attorney-
General did not maintain that doctrine : the papers had
been attacking her for the last four or five months ; at
first, gently, and at a distance ; but the Attorney-Gener
did nothing, because lie thought there wes no doing any
thing with them ; and that, if he approached them he
should get a slap in the face. When asked why he did not
go on against them, his answer was, that it was a bad
matter which could not be mended. Indeed, then, it
seemed that there were degrees of progression, and the
public Press had at length been allowed to arrive at that
degree, that it dealt out proscription and extermination to
two Royal Personages, unless they partook of the exercise
of the " free opinion" which the Press alone thought fit to
tolerate.—(Hear, bear, hear.) Then the House had heard
again that hackneyed doctrine, that hackney-cabriolet
or hackney—coach doctrine—(Hear, hear, and a laugh);
he did not complain of it because it was hackneyed, for
he knew that via trite was often via tutu—but they had
heard that hackney-coach argument, that prosecution
gave publicity to libels, where, if the Attorney-General
was asleep, they would not have been read. That was a
common card trick—a common ecirts'. trick of argument,
which had often been used before, hut which was now
exploded and rendered ridiculous. What was the result
of that argument, but that there ought to be no prosecu-
tions for any libels whatever, however atrocious? He
now came to another argument of the Hon. and Learned
Attorney-General, who had complained of the libels of
the Times. He (Sir 0. Wetherell) had not named the
Times ; for it was not their Times, it was the Times of
the other side—it was the Attorney General's Times.—
(A laugh.) It was a paper conducted by a very able
veriter—it was supposed to have very official knowledge
—it received contributions from the most brilliant pens
in this country—it was a kind of miscellany to which gen•
tlemen on the other side of the House united to contribute
—it prided itself on the merit of publishing papers and
letters which, constitutionally, no man could know—no;
none but a Cabinet Minister. It was a paper which
knew what passed between the King and his Privy
Council—it was prophetic as to what was to happen.
His Hon. and Learned Friend never read the Times; of
course he could not ; but if he did, he would find in its
columns in the morning what was to happen, and what
could only constitutionally be known to Cabinet Minis-
ters. It united a growing power to great intelligence, and,
to great facilities for acquiring information ; and,as lie had
before said, it knew of papers with which they could not
become acquainted but in the most improper and un-
censtitutional manner. But who attacked it? Not he (Sir C.
Wetherell), but the Attorney-General. Why? Because
it bad attacked him, in reporting the speech of a Noble
and Learned Lord, who, in another place, had entered on
the question whether the Attorney-General had or had not
done his duty. But on this occasion he (Sir C. Wetherell)
must step in to defend the Times; and when the Times
mentioned Lord Lyndhurst's doctrine, that Noble had done
nothing more than his duty. The statement then made
was to be defended on every principle known to the Con •
stitution : and if the Attorney-General prosecuted the
Paper, though he was not fond of making an offer of his
services, he would defend the times from that prosecution.
---(A laugh ) The Papers had libelled the Queen—not
for a moral, but a political offence. They must all recol-
lect that the Hon. Baronet, not now in his place, had
called on the Attorney-General to prosecute a certain Paper
for its libels on the late Queen ; and if he were here now
he would, no doubt, with his accustomed eloquence, de-
mand the same interposition on behalf of her present
Majesty. It was true that it was not the duty of this
House to look out for prosecutions; but if the Attorney-
General neglected his duty, it would become the duty of
that House to do this; for otherwise, if the Attorney-
General was a Reformer, there would be no such thing as
a p cpution for libel.
Mr. J. WILLIAMS—I was a silent though zealous
supporter, Sir, of that Bill to which the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman has alluded ; and from that charge, in both
respects, he is certainly exempt, for supporter of it he un-
doubtedly was not; and as to silence, in the number of
his speeches he defied the power of arithmetic-4A laugh)
—they were beyond the means of reckoning—(laughter)
--and human patience legged behind his continued and
man-miffing exertions.—(Continued laughter.) My Hon.
and Learned Friend has called on me, as Attorney-Gene-
ral for the Queen, to prosecute the papers. In the first
Place, he atti ibutes to me an honour that I know not I
Possess, Very early in the recent events, I had the ho-
nour of resigning the previous honour, and how far that
Titration evils effectual I do not know.—(Hear.) But
next place, suppose it was otherwise, and that I was
etheQueen's Attorney. General, I am not aware that I
should possess the power of filing an ex.officto informa.
tinot n,even for a libel upon her Majesty.—(No, no.) If
n
then why am I to be appealed to ? The Queen
though in many respects unlike other
inertin t
ied ladies ll,
distinct rights and privileges she enjoys, is but thefirst
subject of the realm ; and if she comesin o
the King's
Courts, must appear there as a subject ; and it would
therefore be impossible for me, without that sort of ear-
nestness of zeal, resembling that which he has exhibited,
to take the step which he, without the law, supposes I
might have resort to.—(Hear, hear.) On the whole of his
argument, which indeed has not been much curtailed,
and which, as there was no question before the House, he
has carried to an extent beyond what might have been sup-
posed, he has interred that prosecutions for libel, and an
end of libelling, are convertible terms. In making that sup-
position, he has been unmindful of all the events of past
history—unmindful of the occurrences which took place
in the times of other Attorneys-General, of those who
prosecuted the public Press, and of those who were on
the best terms with it. He has forgotten the Attorney-
Gemeralship of Sir Vicary Gibbs, who had nearly one-
half of the public press under prosecution. Did those
prosecutions produce the desired effect—did they put an
zed ro the system of libels, or stifle the indignant spirit
whirls the public felt for the quantity of prosecutions then
instituted ? Directly the reverse. On many of those
prosecutions he was foiled—the public spirit rose is pro-
portion to the violence of the attacks, and so far from those
attacks producing the effect that was desired, they pro-
duced the directly contra, y result.—(Hear, hear.) Take,
Sir, the converse of this proposition—take the example
of a Noble and Learned Lord, who was Attorney-General
subsequently to the time I have mentioned. I may be mis-
te4en, but I believe I am not, when I say that he had a
virgin Attorney-Generalship, like an Hon. Friend op-
posite nee—(Hear)—he filed no ex-officio informations
whatever ; and I will undertake to sas, that no change
more observable than that between Lis time and the time
of the Attorney-Generalship of Sir Vicary Gibbs could
Possibly be imagined.---( Hear.) The circumstance of Sir
John Copley's moderation and forbearance, in contrast
with that of his predecessor, produced that effect which
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman opposite thinks is to be
produced by an over zealous
zealous discharge of duty, but
which I copfess I think
is nut to be produced by that
I
cause, for such conductbelieve to be mote likely to
fan the rising flame than to produce that quiet which he
and
supposes. Does the Hon.
Learned Gentleman think
that no allowance is to be madefora period of excitement ?
Does be believe it to be
possible
feel strongly and the press
to silentfor the people to
; that the people
should have strong feelings,
should
use strops, language,
ande
h strong expressions, but that th
press should' lag be-
hind them ? Does he wish it ? does e desire it ? If he
'bee, I tell him it is impossible, and would be improper :
need I should have thought that his experience and know-
ledge of
philosophy would have taught him that such an
extraordinary difference, instead of wouldassuagiingt,nst s haven promoted and increased the irritation.
Hon. and Learned Friend, as lie puts uest sn ion to me will
such freedom, whether it has never occurred to him, that
when any strong feeling exists, it may be continued by
opposition which is now %kn-nto be ineffectual, but
which is still offensive ?_.(lleac, -
hear.) Cannot he find,
and cannot the Noble Lordrii'ec'
when,
discover, that it is just con-
ceivable that the time has arrived,
in a case of this
kind, the sort of hostility to whichlliave alluded may
take away all the grace from concession, and that the et-
ithtead
feet ofthiof thois hsstility will be
the people believe, that
measure bein makeg
grantedreadily and wildegly,
it has been extorted from the parties who have granted it
hes (Hear, hear.) The lecture which the Hon. and.
Iherned Gentleman has read may produce its effects upon

my Hon. and Learned Friend, who can file an ex-ofli ;‘)
information, but not upon me, for I cannot.—(Hear.)
Sir C. WETHERELL never asserted the Queen's aa
oruey-General could file ear-a/tido information, but lee
night have gone to the King's Attorney-General, and
esked him to file one.
Sir R. PEEL—I think, Sir, that there has been little
around for Gentlemen on the other side of the House '0
.alk of the a, tack made by the Noble Lord near me, whoonty
put a question, which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
!night have answered or not ; but instead of answering
the question, or declining to do so, he made that speech,
which of course must have been matured for the pnr-
pose.—( Hear, and a laugh.) If the attack had been made,
nothing could he more temperate and courteous than the
manner in which the Noble Lord had made it. With one
wart of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's speech I en-
tirely concur. There is no man who has had official ex-
perience of any office connected with the press, who can
fail to experience the dangers of any crusade against the
press. There are considerations of delicacy and prudence ;
and if you produce a hundred libels, and show me that 1
the Attorney-General does not prosecute, I certainly should
not from those two premises alone draw the conclusion
that he had neglected his duty. In cases of obscene, or
irreligious, or seditious publications, I believe that
there are other considerations beyond the simple one
whether they have exceeded the strict letter of the law.
There are other eases in which it is absolutely necessary
that the Government should appeal to the law of the land,
for there may be a danger that a continued impunity
would raise the belief that these libels were sanctioned
by the Government. In some cases it would he the ditty
of the Government, even if they foresaw that the Jury wouhl
acquit, to throw that responsibility on the Jury ; and I
know cases in which, when the Attorney and Solicitor-
Generals had said that there would be acquittals, I have
signified to them the determination of the Cabinet that
they must prosecute. Ido not say that such a case has
now arisen ; I am only arguing on the general principle.
I entreat the Government to consider that principle, and
if the time has not now arrived in which forbearance
would be a greater evil than the chance of acquittal; and
whether tut they forbearance may not amount to a notifi-
cation that they may enjoy a complete and systematic
impunity : the d ineer is, that forbearance may create the
impresainn, that however atrocious the libel, the atrocity
itself would be the best argument in its favour. The part
of the Hun. and Learned Gentleman's speech which I
heard with the deepest regret, was the avowal of that
opinion which was not necessarily extorted from him on
the present occasion, and which, if it generally prevails in
the King's Councils, will be not only fatal to the existence
of this Government, hut of any form of Government that
ever existed. The doctrine which has been laid down by
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman is no other than this—
that no man ought to he prosecuted for the publication of
his opinions, provided those opinions are sincere—(Loud
cheers.) Now, Sir, I mean to say that a Government
cannot co-exist with that doctrine. Sincere opinions ! But
who is to determine whether those opinions are sincere or
not ? The Hon. and Learned Gentleman said in another
part of his speech this evening, that he could not dive into
the hearts of men—that he could not be a spy or an in-
former as to their secret sentiments. How, then, is he to
know, when he meets with a libel dangerous to all good
Government, whether the author of it is sincere in his opi-
nions ?—(Choers.) If such papers as those are written by
a man whose object is confusion and anarchy, may he not
pretend really to hold those opinions which he knows will
lead to the disorganization of society, although in his
heart he reprobates them ? And is the mere avowal of
sincerity to shield him from all prosecution ? I will yen.
ture to say, that the sincerity of a man's opinions has
nothing whatever to do with the question of prosecution.
The only question is, whether the doctrines themselves are
dangerous; and if they seem to be dangerous to the peace
f society, it is the duty of the King's Government to
shield society from the consequences of the public propa-
gation of those doctrines. The lion. and Learned Gen-
tleman has announced a great 1 ititutle of opinion; with
that opinion, personally to himself, I do not quarrel, though
I doubt not that there will be many ready to profit by that
statement; but what I complain of is, that the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman has assumed the robe of the Attorney-
General, for the purpose of destroying and paralysing
the just energies of his office.—(Cheers.) It is the sta-
tion which he holds that makes his doctrines dangerous.
Entertaining the highest respect fur the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman's private character--entertaining also the
highest respect for his public consistency, yet I cannot
conceive how he is able to reconcile his former sentiments
with the duties which devolve on him as the King'sAtto ne,-
General. I would take the liberty of putting this question ro
him. I wish to ask him, what he thinks would have
been the fate of the present Goverement of France, if
that Government had acted on the doctrine that the pub-
lication of any opinion, so long as it was sincere, ought to
be allowed.—(Hear.) Suppose the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman, on the establishment of the Government of
Louis-Philippe, had been appointed that Monarch's Attor-
ney-General, would he have acted on the saute principles
as those which he now avows ; or if he had, would that
Government have stood the reiterated attacks of the Press?
Does he mean to say that every Carlist and every revolu-
tionary paper ought to be allowed to attack the principles
of Government, and to encourage the people to resistance ?
I will venture to say, that that Government would not
have existed for many months if it had pursued that
course. But so far from attempting to act on that
doctrine, the French Ministry found it to he ab-
solutely necessary, notwithstanding the principles of
the Government were liberal, and notwithstand-
ing M. Perier (the head of the Ministry) had for
many years been the determined opponent of the dif-
ferent Governments of Charles X. —I say, the French
Ministry found it to he absolutely necessary for the salva-
tion o the Monarchy to institute no les., I believe, than
three or four hundred prosecutions in one year. And yet
I never heard that attributed to any desire on the part of
AI. Perier to control the liberty of the Press. The foun-
dation of the present French Government was laid in the
illegal attempt of the former Government to control the
liberty of the Press. But M. Perier said, and wisely in
my judgment, if these attempts are !nude both by the Re
volutionists and the Carlists to excite the public mind
atainst us, we will not have recourse to illegal ordinances,
but we will have recourse to the juries of the country and
the laws of the I ind, and put it to those juries whether
they will assist us in executing those laws.—( Hear, hear.)
And yet, after all, these opinionspn i opublishedns. in theor Frenchmy o:,
i,
ultra papers may be very sincere
part, do not doubt that the revolutionary 'lapels are sin-
cere as well as the Carlist papers ; but surely it is a
montrrous doctrine to say that this one apology is sufficient
to protect the libellers !tom the prosecution of the law.
I doubt whether that Government could have at all
struggled against its difficulties if the King of the French
had not had Ministers of firmness enough to enforce the
lew or the land. But how different is the case in this
country ? The Hon. and Learned Gentleman has given
us a history of the way in which he acted when sit-
ting in the capacity of a Judge. He has told us that he
had before him a culprit charged with a most scandalous
publication, revolting to the best feelings of nature—and
not rnere;y calling in question the truths of religion, but
calling them iii question in a manner so indecent, that no
one of I.lltlllll rt piety could listen to either substance or
farm se i bout having his feelings shocked. I can well
understand that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman might
doubt the policy of prosecuting this man—the policy of
bringing te'ese doctrines under the notice of the public.
But this is not what the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
said.—(Hear, hear.) He referred to the length of the
man's imprisonment, and, therefore, by that time the
question of the policy of the prosecution was at an end.
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman',; expressions, there-
fore, applied not to the legal injustice, but to the moral
injustice of the sentence, when lie stated that lie felt un-
easy during the continuance of the confinement of the
man, and experienced great relief in his mind when the
term of that imprisonment expired.—(Laud cheers.)
If, then, this is the question—not of policy—but of
moral justice, I despair of any Government being able
to exist if these doctrines are to prevail ; for if it is
unjust to bring before the public tribunals and punish ac-
cording to law those who entertain opinions offensive
to religion or dangerous to the existence of Government,
I really see nothing but the establishment of a more sordid
and degrading tyranny than any to which society he ever
yet been exposed. To tell us that we have nothing for it
hut to take redress into our own hands—to tell us that
there is impunity for any libel against the Government,
provided only that the opinion expressed is sincerely en-
tertained—is, in other words, to tell us that the grossest
injuries may be committed—grosser than any inflicted by
the confiscation of property—grosser even to a man! of
honour than any that can threaten his life, and from which
every hope of redress is to be excluded. I must say, Sir,
that this is a novel doctrine.—(Cheers.) The Hon. and
Learned Gentleman has referred to the early periods of
his life, and has told us that he derived from high autho-
rity those lessons of constitutional learning which he has
observed in his subsequent course. But let me ask him—
Did Mr. Fox, Mr. Sheridan, or Lord Erskine, think
that, because as men sincerely held opinions, it was, there-
tore, pertectly safe to allow them to promulgate them
without notice or prosecution? Does the Hon, and
Learned Gentleman recollect the libel of Mr. John
Reeves against the two Houses of Parliament ? If not,
I can inform him that the persons then in opposition

sever sanctioned the doctrine, that because Mr. Rees •
really entertained the opinion that the House of Lori-
and the House of Commons, which branches might le
lopt off without injury to the Monarchy, which was ta
trunk, lie ought, therefore, to go unprosecuted for givins
publicity to such a doctrine. If I remember right, Mr.
Sheridan made two motions on that subject, the one seas
that the libel should be burnt by the common hangman.
and the other was that Mr. Reeves should be prosecuted
by the Attorney-General. In vain did Mr. Reeves say
that he was sincere in his opinion ; he was prosecuted in
spite of his sincerity ! It is certainly true that the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman somewhat qualified his doctrine
by saying that those sincere published opinions must not
excite to acts of violence. But this is a very nice point t
bins. A man, for instance, may say that the time has arriveei
when the ties of society ought to he dissolved; as. indeed, it
has very Istely been said that the time for putting an end
to the discipline of the soldier has come. The men who en-
tertain this letter doctrine are, probably, of opinion that if
is not the ditty of the army to array itself on the side of the
law ; and are such persons as those to be told that they may
publish those doctrines, to do what they can to induce th.e•
soldier to forget his duty? Are we, too, to be told that
it is not the duty of the Attorney-General to stand forward
and appeal to the laws of the country for redress in such
a case? Sir, I cannot but deeply lament when I hear such
doctrines as those promulgated.—(Hear, hear.) Neither,
when I hear such sentiments, can I help seeing that it is
not merely the Reform Bill that we are engaged in passing.
—(Cheers.) It is not merely this one experiment which
we are going to make on the Constitution of the country,
an experiment which even its advocates say, though neces-
sary, is dangerous. No, Sir, what I still more lament is,
that when the public mind is excited, you are not taking
those means which are compatible with the success of the
Reform measure, of allaying the public fever, and assua-
ging the hot-headed violence that is abroad. In the
state in which the public Press is at present, I think the
Attorney- General has expressed himself in a manner
wholly uncalled for, for he has stated that it is painful to
his conscience to sentence a notorious offender for a gross
libel against religion, because that libel might, by chance,
contain the offender's sincere opinions. lam afraid,
that by such expressions as these, he has tied his
hands against any prosecutions that may be necessary.
But do not let it be supposed that I am bringing any
charge against the Hon. and Learned Gentleman for
his official conduct heretofore. So far from it, I wit.
nessed, with pleasure, his manly prosecutions of Mr. Car-
lile and Mr. Cobbett ; though I cannot help observing,
that at that time he did not stop to inquire whether the
libels contained their sincere opinions. No, he only in-
quired whether the libels were mischievous in their ten -
dency.—(flear. ) He inquired into their tendency—he
found they were calculated to encourage incendiarism, and
he therefore prosecuted the authors. What was the re-
sult of those prosecutions? One was convicted. It is
true the other escaped ; but under what circumstances ?
Eleven of the Jury, says the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
(though, by the way, I do not know how he got at that
fact) were for a conviction; but the twelfth, who was a
friend of Mr. Cobbett's, starved the eleven into acquiescing
in his opiuicn. Now, Sir, I mean to say that such an ac-
cident as this is no argument against any future prosecu-
tions ; and to be deterred from prosecuting, because, by
accident, there is one man on a Jury able to control his
fellows, is to be deterred by a phantom which should not
be allowed to have any effect. I cannot help hoping that
these opinions have rather been expressed by the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman, in expectation of some attack
being made upon bin At all events, I can assure him,
that nothing would give me greater pleasure than to learn
that I have misunderstood what he said ; for in the pre-
sent titnes, and in those which I foresee will succeed the
present, I cannot conceive any opinion more dangerous
to the Government of the country than the doctrine, that a
man may not only maintain, but propagate any principles,
provided be is sincere in them, among the deluded and in-
furiated multitude.—(Cheers.)
The ATTORNEY.GENERAL—I never said that, in
my judgment, sincerity of opinion was to protect a man
from prosecution ; on the contrary, I said that I could not
dive into men's hearts. I also said that it was not my
personal feeling that was to regulate this matter; but my
feeling of what was due to the security of the public, and
to the honour of the Crown. More than this is unneces-
sary ; and while I entertain these principles, which I be-
lieve to be as Just as I know them to be sincere, I shall
not take the advice of the Right Hon. Gentleman (though
I receive it with all the candour that is due to it) to resign
my office into hands in which the duties of it may not
perhaps be more conscientiously discharged, even though
the Right Hon. Baronet himself should appoint my suc-
cessor.—(hear, hear, and a laugh.) Ido not know what
his opinion of the duties of an Attorney-General may he,
but my opinion is this—that he is to do all that in his
conscience he believes to be right for the purpose of pro-
tecting the peace of the country, and the honour of the
Crown.—( Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman has
asked me my opinion of the conduct of the French Go..
vernment. In the first place. I beg to sty that there is no
sort of parallel between a new Government emerging from
the Revolution of the berricedes—
Several Hem. I%lEl%lm:its : Spoke! spoke !
The ATTORNEY-GENRAL—Whoever objects to
my observations on the ground of my having spoken, will,
I trust, be so good as to remember that I have risen in
consequence of being misunderstood.—(llear, hear.) I
was about to say that no just parallel can be drawn be-
tween the ancient and long-established Government of
England and the new Government of France : hut I be-
lieve that, ineread of the latter being strengthened, it has
been materially injured by the multitude of prosecutions
that the French Ministry thought proper to institute. As
to the example set by Mr. Fix and Mr. Sheridan in the
case of Mr. John Reeves, I think at all events that that is
not an example in favour of such prosecutions, and, least
of all, by order at the House of Commons. Let me remind
the Right Hon. Gentleman that I looked to other cantle.
quences besides that which he has quoted, as if it had been
the solitary one on which I rested my argument; for
though I said that sincerity of opinion was one of those
opinions which would make me reluctant to prosecute, yet
I only mentioned it as one of numerous others which would
weigh with me as Attorney-General before I committed
the honour of the Crown to the uncertain issue of a legal
prosecution.—(Hear, hear.) Indeed, I may say that I
mentioned all the objections which the Right Hon.
Gentleman has laid down, and particularly that of
giving a greater publicity and thereby increasing the
atrocity of the venom. I admit that throughout the
us hole of this debate we have in a manner been
letting out secrets; and I therefore think it would
have been better if such a question had not been put in
this House as that proposed by the Noble Lord (Stor-
mont); for even the arguments of the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman himself—built as they are on official experience
—are just encouragements to the repetitions of the libel.
I therefore think that it would be much better not to
discuss these matters, whereby we shall be avoiding, as
far as we can, the introduction of them to the notice of
the public.—(Hear, hear.) The Right lion. Gentleman
has also thought proper to make a sort of reprehension on
me for entering so largely on this eubj•ct, when it only
came before the House in the shape of a question proposed
to me—l admit in a most courteous manner—by tha
Noble Lord. But I would ask the Noble Lord himself,
whether, after what has been said in this House and the
o'her House of Parliament, and whether, after his having
given notice of this very question, it would not have been
a surprise to him, and an apparent direliction of duty in
me, if I had nut taken the opportunity of stating some of
the reasons which, in my view, make these prosecutions
unadvisahle ? I really think, after all, that there id no
great difference of opinion between us on the principle of
the thing : we have only stated some considerations which
have more or less strength according to our different situ-
ations 3 but Ido not feel that in anything (except as to
the sincerity of a man's opinions) I differ from the Right
Hon. Gentleman—unless, indeed, in degree. With re-
spect to the particular ease I menti ened to the House,
I did so because I thought it was a strong illustra-
tion of the want of power on the part of the Attorney-
General to put an end to a libel ; for, notwithstanding
the abhorrent nature of the publication, the public feeling
was far from being satisfied at the sentence, and I thyself
(as I must again repeat) was glad when the term of the
man's imprisonment had expired ; not that I believe that
the sentence was unjust, but because I felt that he was a
young man just come to town, who probably did not know
what he was doing, and who was led away by a false en-
thusiasm into an honest belief of the sincerity of hi-
cause. I now only have to thank the House for its in-
dulgence in having listened to me, and again to repeat,
that, us Attorney-General, I am giving up no power that
belongs to the Crown. lam only :squirting up for a care-
ful and forbearing use of it, which I believe will not only
conduce to the protection of property, but to the well-
being of the whole counnuni'y.—(Cheers.)
Sir R. PEEL—I think that all who heard the lion.
and Learned Gentleman will confirm me in my impres-
sion, that be laid down the doctrine of the sincerity of a
man being an apology for any libel he might publish,
without any qualification whatever, unless the libel excited
to actual violence. I certainly recognise a distinction be-
tween the Government of France and the Government of
England ; but, nevertheless, I can see circumstances even
in this ancient Government which may call for the alive

interference of the law, for the purpose of repressing the
too great licentiousness of the Press.—(Hear.)
Captain GORDON said if Government would not pr
.eeute such li elit as those alluded to by his Noble Friend
he would pledge himself to bring the worst he could co►
fect, once a week, to the House of Commons, for the pur
pose of reading them.—(A laugh.) Thereby he shoo'.
he discharging his duty—(A laugh)—and then the respon-
sibility would rest on the shoulders of the Government.
Lord ALTHORP—I hope the Hon. Gentleman will
not persevere in reading those papers to the House once a
week ; for he very truly says it is probable that a great
number of the Members of this House do not know even
of the existence of the papers from which he is to quote ;
to which I may add, that it is also probable that a great
majority of the people of England are equally ignorant os
them ; and, therefore, if the Hon. Gentleman, week after
week, reads all the most objectionable passages, he will be
in a fair way of giving them a prosperous sale.—(Laugh-
ter.) Agreeing very much in what has fallen from
the Right Honourable Member for Tamtvorth, I think
that one of the dangers of prosecuting these libels
will be, to give the defendant an opportunity of making
an impudent defence in a Court of Justice, whereby the
publicity of his paper will be very much increased.
But there are other circumstances which we are also bound
to take into consideration—the state of the excitement in
the country at the present moment, for instance ; though,
at the same time, I admit, that whatever that excitement
may be, on general political subjects. it cannot at all jus-
tify the personal attacks which have lately been made. I
am sure that in making this statement, I am only ex-
pressing the general feeling of the House ; but if we once
enter into a crusade of prosecutions of this sort, so far from
doing good to the cause of good Government, morality, or
freedom of opinion so called, I am afraid that we shall be
inflicting on all these a most serious injury.—e(Hear.)
Mr. HUNT, with repect to Mr. Hetherington, with
whom he was intimately acquainted, could take on himself
to say that that Gentleman was very sincere in his opinions.
The Attorney-General had given him infinite pleasure by
the speech which he had delivered that night.—(A laugh.)
He never thought to have lived to hear such a speech from
an Attorney-General—(Hear.)—and having heard it, he
did not wish to live to hear another.—(A laugh.) The
Attorney-General, however, had alluded to a case that he
had tried at the Old Bailey. Now, he wished to ask the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman whether he had not in-
creased the man's imprisonment, because he had made
an impudent speech in defence?—(" Certainly not"
from the Attorney-General.) Well, at all events, it
had so been reported. He also wished to know why the
prosecution against Mr. Cobbett had been suspended ?
Was it not because Mr. Hume had written to Lord
Grey, to dissuade him from the prosecution, because Mr.
Cobbett was so strenuous an advocate for the Reform Bill?
(A laugh.) He understood that it west; anti if the At-
torney-General would not afford any information on the
subject, he (Mr. Hunt) should some day move for a copy
of the letter. The effect of suspending Mr. Cohbett's
prosecution was, that Mr. Car lile was tempted to write a
still stronger article the following week, for which he was
prosecuted and convicted. Only a week back, and coaches,
omnibuses, and all, were christened Adelaide. Half the
boys and girls, too, who were born were christened Ade-
laide ; and now the name was all at once wiped out from
the omnibuses, and boys and girls were a shamed of it. He
remembered when he came first to London—he vas then
14 years of age—that he had to walk from the Saracen's
Head to Newgate, and in the Old Bailey he perceived a
very bad smell.—(A laugh.) He found that this arose
from the burning of a woman, who had been found
guilty of coining. There were no laws to exempt females
from punishment, and if the Queen had done any wrong
—though he did not say she had—she might be liable to
punishment. At least there was nothing, as the Hon.
Member said, unmanly, offensive, or ungentlemanly, in
calling a woman to account.
Mr. SHAW congratulated the Attorney-General on the
compliments he had received from the Hon. Member for
Preston. ''hey must be doubly valuable, inasmuch as the
Hun. Member had accompanied them by some observa•
tions equally laudatory on Mr. Hetherington, the editor
of the Poor Alan's Guardian, a paper published ex-
pressly in defiance of the law, in order to try right agains
might.

111 r. J. CAMPBELL thought it was not the duty of
the House of Commons to instruct the Attorney-General
in the performance of his duty.
REFORM BILL FOR SCOTLAND.
The Order of the Day for the second reading of the
Scotch Reform Bill was then read.
The LORD ADVOCATE rose to move that the Bill
he then read a second time. It was not his intention to
enter at any length into the subject, or enter into any ar-
guments as to the principles of the Bill then before the
House, but not for the first time. On the present occa-
sion he would only state that the principles of the Bill
were the same as the Bill formvrly before the House, and
which was carried to a second reading during the last ses-
sion of this Parliament by a larger majority, he believed,
than had voted on any question concerning the English
Bill. It was not his intention to anticipate the objections
which might be made to the Bill, but he should reserve to
himself the privilege of replying to any objections which
mightbe made,
Members. On h
oroftaking notice of
pofraensyentltainogctel:sin, he
that might
fall from Hon.
should confine himself to explaining the alterations which
bad been made in the provisions of the Bill. He hoped,
after the second reading, that the House would allow him
to go into the Committee pro forma, when those altera-
tions might be introduced and the Bill printed with them.
The changes he meant to propose were not material. In
the first place, in order to meet the objections of some
gentlemen of Argyleshire, he meant to separate the island
of Bute from that county. The second change which
the Learned Lord mentioned related to the inhabitants of
boroughs, but its exact purport was not ascertained in the
gallery. The third alteration related to the machinery of
the B; 1, and the manner of registering votes. The duty
of making that register and of attending to the subject,
was, in the boroughs, transferred from the sheriff-clerk to
the town-clerk. There were a variety of minor alterations
to render the provisions of the Bill in accordance with
those of the English Bill as amended by the Committee,
hut these would be best explained in the Committee.—
(Hear.) He had only, then, to move that the Bill be read
a second time

Sir G. CLERK said, it was not possible that he could
allow the Bill to go a second reading without declaring
that he retained all the opinions he had formerly expressed
on this whole measure. He meant to declare his opinion
without any fear of the consequences, notwithstanding the
Hon. and Learned Member for Wilichilsea had attributed
all the excitement which existed in the country to the op-
position which had been made to the Reform Bills. He
might take refuge behind the Articles of Union, and, hold-
ing them in his hand, object to the Bill. He did not
mean, however, to divide the House on the subject, but
only to enter his protest against the whole measure. He
' certainly objected to the qualification for counties, as most
injurious to the landed interest. No Anti-Reformer of
Scotland objected to giving representatives to the large
towns: on the contrary, the Anti-Reformers wished to
give such towns representatives; but they objected to the
qualification proposed. He hoped that the Learned Lord,
and the Noble Lord, would appeal, not to the Anti-Re-
formers, but to the Reformers of Scotland, and they
would learn that the qualification for the county electors
was very unfavourable to that agricultural interest which
the Bill professed to pronnte. He hoped, most
earnestly, that the mischiefs which he apprehended from
the Bill might be averted ; but certainly be feared that
much mischief would result from the Bill ; and he believed
even some of its supporters were alas med for its probable
consequences.

Mr. FYSRE PALMER referred to the trial and im-
prisonment of Muir and Palmer, for having promoted Re-
form in Scotland. They encouraged the people of Scot-
land to petitio❑ for their rights, and for this they were
tunished• The words they used were—to claim for them-
selves a full, fair, and free representation of the people i❑
Parliament. These very words were now ringing from
one end of Scotland to the other, and fur using them were
Muir and Palmer sent to Botany Bay. They were sen-
tenced to he transported for using words that were now
idolized throughout Scotland. They were treated as it
they had bee❑ guilty of highway-robbery. They were
sent to the hulks, where he had visited Mr. Palmer, and
found him loaded with irons, and placed amidst house-
breakers footpads, and highwaymen. These men
were punished for saying that Scotland was entitled
to a full anti fair representation. That was lorty
years ago. What a change had now taken place !
The actions for which men were then punished were now
idolized throughout the country. What had brought about
this change ? Had not peisecution tried to prevent it ?
Banishment had been tried; other punishments had been
tried ; but they had not prevented the effect of those
principles which were calculated to benefit society. The
measure of Reform was now beyond the power of man to
stop it, and he was convinced that it was calculated to add
to the happiness of the people. What was the cause 01
this great change? For forty years the Government had
opposed it. Had it been brought about by the Whigs and
Radicals out of office? Was it the fruit of Whig or Tory
Councils ? Gentlemen had talked of reaction ; but these
who looked upon the events of the last ten days would
never talk of reaction again. There was scarcely a town
in England and Scotland which had not come forward in
favour of the Bill. He had taken the pains to inquire