Star.
London, England, 1819-12-11 00:00:00

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS.

HOUSE OF LORDS, DECEMBER 10.

The CIIANCT.LLOR of the FICHCQUit brought up the ftwort
of till- Drilling and Training Bill from the Commons, witlif 'eve-
nt verb.sl amendments, which, on the motion of Lord Sus-

suatanoware agreed to vritboataliscuasion.
The Earl of CA RNAEVON presented a Petition from the
Inhabitants of Puddington, in the County of Devon, praying
for a subdivision of the aist'ricts where LiCeIIGNI are granted to
iPoblie-houses.

Lord IWLLE said a few words to the same effect as on
Monday night, with regard to the application having been re-
jected by the Quarter Sessions; after Which the Petition was nr-
dared to lie on the table.

LIBEL. PREVENTION BILL.
Lord SIDMOUTH moved the third reading of
this Bill; upon which
The Earl of CARNARVON rose and said, that
after the ample discussion which .the subject bad al-
ready undergone, it was not his intention to detain
their Lordships at any length in the observations he
had now to submit. Willing as he was to accede to
an; -measure which the exigency of the occasion
might require, still he could by no means support
one which should have for its object a permanent
alteration in the existing laws, unless stronger argu-
ments were adduced than those already brought for-
ward. He thought it behoved the Noble Viscelet,
before he alleged that the laws of the land were in-
sufficient for the ends of justice, to prove how far
they had been put into execution, and to what;
extent seditious libels had been prosecuted•during the
last two or three years—Wear, hear). It excited his
astonishment to see that new laws were called for,
when, if the number of prosecutions instituted by the
Attorney-General during the year 1818, were summed
tip, it would. be found to amount to nil. The fact
was, that there was no increase whatever of blasphe-1
mous or seditious libels, till the beginning of the
present year, and even these were much exaggerated,
as to the number in circulation. He must protest,
as he had already done, against making local and
temporary dangers the grounds for effecting a per-
manent change in the Constitution ; and, with this
impression upon his mind, should now move, as an
Amendment, that " the Act do continue in force two
years after the passing of the Bill, and no more."
Lord SIDMOUTH opposed the Amendment, ob-
serving he had never till that moment heard of the
Noble Earl's readiness to accede to any measure of a
temporary nature, nor had this Bill originated in the
mere necessity of meeting temporary difficulties and
local dangers. No ;it was framed for the purpose
of seeming the Religion and Constitution of the
Country against the assaults of seditious blasphemers,
whose object was to destroy both. Yet he held it to
be an imperative duty on their Lordships, to mark
their regard for the sacred Institutions of the coun-
try, by giving their assent to the provisions of this
Bill ; and he might be permitted to observe, that the
existing law upon the subject was far more severe than
the new one, inasmuch as it recognized, even for the
first offence, that most degrading and ignominious
punishment the pillory, in addition to fine and im-
prisonment. This Bill, however, reserved for the
second offence, the more severe punishment, which
was banishment or transportation, while it altogether
rejected that of the pillory, as incompatible with a
civilized system of jurisprudence. With respect to
the question why blasphemous and seditious libels
had not beta more frequently prosecuted during the
last three years? he oould assure the Noble Earl,
that two of the most eminent men that the country
hid produced, the then Attorney and Solicitor-Gene-
ral, applied their minds to the subject with the most
earnest attention, but found that the acquittal of one
person had produced so much confidence in others,
that they set all prosecution at defiance, and it was
considered of no avail to proceed against them. It
was i fact, however, worthy of being noticed, that the
number of libels in 1818 decreased considerably, and
this induced a hope which, in the sequel, proved a
fallacious one, that the authors would soon find it an
unprofitable trade to send them among the People—
They-, however, multiplied to such an extent in the
beginning of the year 1819, that the Government
found it necessary to call upon the Law Officers, to.
increase the prosecutions in a proportionate ratio;
but it was still found that all their activity would
not be sufficient to counteract the evil, if they were
not invested with additional powers. But the lan-
guage now used by Noble Lords on the other side
was not new, and he remembered tp have heard si-
milar charges of remissness in prosecuting, urged
against the Government in 1792. Yet when, in that
year, the Magistrates had been called upon to use
every endeavour in detecting and punishing the au-
thors and publishers of such libels as those of the
present day, there was a cry raised, that the object
was to encourage and establish an unconstitutional
power. There was then an association, which subscri-
bed voluntarily to prosecute such libels, and among
the Members of it were Mr. Windham, Sir W. Grant,
and the late Mr. Perceval ; but their laudable efforts
were held forth as dangerous to the Constitotion, by
those very men who did not hesitate to return thanks
to his Noble and Learned Friend on the other side,
(Lord Erskinel, for his defence of Tom Paine. Thus
it had happened also, with regard to himself. When
he had called tin the Magistrates to stop the pro-
gress of sedition and blasphemy, within their respec-
tive jurisdictions, he was charged with a violation of
his official duty. With respect to the Amendment,
he should oppose it in decided terms, and he thought
if there was any deficiency in the Bill, it was in not
providing a punishment severe enough for offences
which might.be committed in the first instance.
The Earl of ROSSLYN supported the Amend-
ment, and contended that the decrease of libels in
lifb, immediately after the acquittal of Mr. Hone,
was the strongest argument that could be urged,
why no new laws were necessary to suppress them.
lie was unwilling, he said, to impute undue motives
to any men, yet, it would seem, that Ministeri were
arming themselves with powers unknown to the
Constitution, for no effect that could, in the least, be
favourable to it.

Lord ERSKINE was not aware, when he formerly
addressed their Lordships on the subject of this Bill,
of the circumstances disclosed by the papers on the
table. lie could not .know that in 1818 there had
been no prosecution instituted, and in 1819.0n1y one.
,ainly, aftbrded further ground for resisting
But the Noble Viscount ought not to sup-
those who opposed this measure had been
►g Ministers for not prosecuting. What