Star.
London, England, 1823-03-20 00:00:00

PROSECUTIONS TOIL SEDITION AND BLASPHEMY.

Mr. HUME said, that in the year 1821, he had
moved for a Return of the number of Prosecutions
instituted in Great Britain :tad Scotland since the
year 1812, for blasphemous and seditious libels.—
Ft ont some verbal inaccuracy in the motion, or soma
misapprehension of its terms, the Return to it was
incomplete and unsatisfactory ; and he was therefore
under the necessity, of reviving the subject. Prose-
cutions for seditious and blasphemous libels had, in
several instances, been carried on by certain bodies
of individuals, denominating themselves Societies for,,
the Suppression of Vice, and the Constitutional
Asso-
ciation, itistead of their being carried on by the Con-
stitutional Officers of the Crown, the Attorney and
Solicitor-Generals. Into the merits of these prose-
cutions be should not at present enter ; but he bad no
difficulty in stating, that they had p; °doted an effect
directly opposite to that which was intended—(Hear,
hcar, hear).—He purposed bringing the conduct of
these Societies under the notice of the House by a
specific motion; but in order to his doing so, the in-
formation for which he proposed to move would be
necessary. He moved, therefore, for a Return of
the number of Prosecutions instituted from Decem-
ber, 1812, to December, 1822, on charges of pub-
lishing Blasphemous or Seditious Libels; distinguish-
ing those brought by the Attorney-General (and, in
the prosecutions not 'brought by him, stating the
name and residence of the prosecutor); stating also
the character of each alleged offence, and the
county in which it was charged to have been- corn-
tnitted ; stating, also, whether the prosecution was
brought to trial or not, and if tried, the date and
place of trial, stating whether the accused was con-
victed or acquitted ; and if convicted, setting out the
sentence and date of its passing : and if the sentence
shall have expired in point oftime, stating whether
the convicted had been discharged, and when ; and
if not so discharged, stating the cause of detention.
Mr- Secretary PEEL had no objection to the mo:
tion ; but he begged to observe, that there would be

much diffictilty and delay in getting some of the par.
titulars called for. If the Hon. Member had limited.
his motion to cases within London and Nliddieseu
and which it appeared Would iii a great measure an-
swer his purpose, the particulars could joon be got at..
Mr. HUME said, it would not answer his purpose
to have the motion confined. He wanted to spew
the extent of the prosecutions.
_ . . .

Mr. Secretary PEEL said, that, for instance, it
could not he supposed that the Society far the Sup-
preiiion of rice extended its proceedings to Scotland.
There might be much delay in obtaining Returns
from that part of the country.
Mr. H,UM E said, he should not consider it a delay
if the Returns were laid on the table shortly after the
Easter recess. If these Societies had not extended
their proceedings to Scotland, the Lord Advocate
could easily make a return of nil; and as to prose-
cutions instituted by him or his predecessors officially,
there cduld be no difficulty.—Motion agreed to.