Star.
London, England, 1818-06-03 00:00:00

. . . . •
. • . .
. _
1.19•F*. .
c) gib •
t ~, _*. , • 44. :
fir'4 .seiti.
iligArk i . • 114) r.....,
_,.......‘,- . ,
~,.... ,
...
WEDNESDAY, JUNE -

1818.

ment proposed by the Bill, mei with ethers of Melt Lard*,
felt, that the purchasers of the game, in the way vibrant *Wert
equally guilty with the sellers.
After sonic further discussion, the House divided—Qs the
question for going into a Committee on the Bill, their Lordships
divided :—Contents, 33 ; Not Contents, P • Majority, 24.
The House accordingly resolved into a Committee, and having
gone through the Bill, it was reported wittiest any amendment.
ALIEN BILL.
The Earl of LAUDtRDALE presented a Petition
from a number, he said, of respectable persons, mostly
commercial men, who, in consequence of the Clause
incorporated with the above Bill, on the motion of
the Noble Secretary of State, were placed in a situa-
tion in which no men ever stood before in this coun-
try. They were liable to the injurious and unjust
operation of an es. post facto law ; and he moved
that the Petition of these Gentlemen be read. The
Petition set forth, that the subscribers were informed
,that a Bill was before their Lordships, establishing
certain regulations with respect to Aliens, and that
a Clause had been introduced therein, providing, that
such persons as had become naturalized since the
98th day of April last, under an Act of
,the Parlia-
anent of Scotland, passed in 1695, were to be taken
is Aliens, notwithstanding the provisions of the said
Act, which was sanctioned by various subsequent
Acts of the Britirdi Parliament. That they had so
acquired the rights of British subjects, were long re-
sident in this country, carrying on their business as
merchants, and most of them had childran who were
natural born subjects of his Majesty. The Petitioners
humbly prayed, that they might not be so deprived
of their lawfully acquired rights, and prayed to be
heard by their Counsel against the said Clause. The
document was signed by several persons, all of whom
had foreign names, and were for the most part Ger-
man, as it appeared. On the question that the Peti-
tioners be heard by their Counsel, against the Clause,
same discussion took place.
Viscount SIDMOUTH shortly submitted it to their
Lordships, whether, after the ample and repeated
discussions the Clause, and the grounds upon which
it was adopted, had so recently undergone, it would
not be necessary for him to add any thing further.
It was decidedly his opinion that the proceeding of
the Bill should experience no further delay.
Earl GREY wished to make only a few observa-
tions. The little interest attached to this measure
excited his surprise, at it was one of the most im-
portant that could be introduced to the attention of
the House, affecting the liberty of the subject, the
liberty of the press, and all those rights most highly
valued by Englishmen. The power of Magistrates
to commit for felony, and for breaches of the peace,
could not be denied ; but he had formerly contended,
and would still contend, that offences tending to a
.breach of the peace could not come under that cha-
racter. He was supported in this by Lord Hale and
Lord Coke, and the doctrine was utterly inconsistent
with the liberty of the subject and the freedom of the
press. The one hundred and twenty-eight instances
of committal mentioned by the Lord Chancellor had
occurred in the metropolis, and there had been no
returns from other parts of the country, which con-
vinced him that there was no such instances record-
ed. Even in the metropolis, there had been no com-
mittals since the American war. But he would even
go farther, and say, that although the practice had
been general, that was no argument that it was legal.
General warrants had continued fur a long time;
and yet, upon examination, they were found to be
contrary to law. When Magistrates committed in
other crimes, there was always a corpus delicti; and
the only question with him was, whether by the evi-
dence taken on oath, the participation of the party
in that crime was made out : but, in cases of libel,
the corpus delicti was the only thing to be tried.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL contended, with great
energy and effect, against the proceeding of hearing
Petitions by Counsel on such an occasion as that in
question. The measure was one of. great public po-
licy, and calculated for public objects ; and standing
on the ground of State necessity, as it did, it was
the duty of Parliament to legislate without reference
to minor considerations or individuals interest. I:
may be a question subsequently, whether private in•
dividuals may not lay a ground entitling them to
compensation.. But he must protest against the prin-
ciple that suck a consideration should militate against
or impede the progress of a measure of ;rest public
policy, founded, like the present, in evident State
necessity. He therefore felt it his duty to oppose the
proceeding a- now proposed.
Lord HOLLAND argued, that the Noble Earl
had advanced no solid grcund against the hearing
of Counsel, as proposed ; and, particularly, it should
be considered, that the Petitioners did not. cornp'.ain
of any loss in the way of property, but of the de-
stitution of political -rights acquired under the law
of the rand.

of the recent prosecuthiins, which, he Argued. fur-
nished additional reams, fyr the enactment which he
Proposed. Persons who were selling the Parodies
which a Jury had foiled to be not criminal, were
loaded with irons and torn from their families.—
, Scholes, who made an affidavit stating that he knew
the iniqaities of Oliver, was arrested on a warrant
from the Secretary of State, and discharged long af-
ter, without the benefit even of a tthl. He (Lord
Erskine) should never justify blasphemy ; but what
as the enormity of wllich these men were really
guilty ? Not blasphemy, but an intention to ridicule
.Ministers ; and yet no notice whatever was taken of
this offence. Ministers were reviled, the House of
Commons called a borough-mongering faction, and
no legislature; and yet for all this offence there was
not a single count. He now came to the subject of,
practice: the returns of the recognizances for which
lie had moved :hewed that there were some few in-
ce& in which a Secretary of State had committed,
i r • of Anne, George I. and George 11. and
of George UL and not afterwards till the

43a, but there was not one return of a commitment
by a Justice of Peace—(Hear, hear.) He now came
to the most material point—that by the Act of 1792
it was no longer in the power of a Magistrate to de-
cide what was libel, but a Jury alone could do so.
In committing, therefore, for this offence, a Magis-
trate must entirely set aside the Statute of 1792, and
take on himself to decide what was libel (hear, hear.)
He was sure that every Magistrate would gladly re-
linquish so invidious a power, even if it were legal.
The Noble and Learned Lord concluded by moving
the second reading of the Bill, as a declaratory law,
which was only intended to remove doubt, and not
to establish any new enactment.
The LORD CHANCELLOR rose, and expressed
his wish that his Noble and Learned Friend would
not press his motion. His Lordship then entered into
the consideration of some of the leading propositions
advanced by the Noble Mover ; and in most of which
he felt himself obliged to say he differed widely from
him. It was impossible to contend successfully, he
obs•rved, that in all ages of the English Law it was
not usual for Magistrates to commit for matters
which had only an obvious tendency to breaches of
the peace. There were thousands of cases from which
it appeared that the Judges and Magistrates had a
right to do that which his Noble and Learned Friend
either doubted or controverted. Such an enactment
as was now proposed would be at least questionable,
and, in some views, of very serious ill tendency.--
With respect to the recent cases, as alluded to, he
was of opinion that the Secretary of State had been
well advised in holding these persons to bail ; and he
thought the subsequent refusal to discharge the re-
cogntzances until the cases were brought before the
Court, was highly proper. It would be inconsistent,
as well as of injunous tendency, to originate as a
legislative provision in that House, propositions which
may eventually come before it for decision, as the
Court of dernier resort. Considering farther the case
of some of the recent prosecutions for libellous or blas-
phemous Parodies, he observed it should always be re-
membered, as laid-down by the most eminent lawyers.
that the Christian religion was a part of the law of
the land, and that to libel these doctrines or
tions was in effect to libel the Government politically.
Upon the whole, it appeared to him that no solid
ground whatever was laid for any legislative enact-
ment of the kind, and therefore he deemed it his din)
to offer a negative to the motion.

Earl GREY considered this case as one of the most
important that ever came before the House, connec-
ted as it was with the Liberty of the Press, on which
all our rights and property depended. lie had, on
a former night, endeavoured to skew, from the au-
thority of Lord Coke, Lord I tale, Serjeant llawkius,
Lord Chief Justice Holt, Chief Justice Farquhar, and
Lord Mansfield, that there
.was no power to commit
for misdemeanour before indictment found. It was
contrary to the Constitution to commit before indict•
mesa of offences, tending to produce breaches of the
pea. If the practice were, as the Noble and Lear
ed Lord had stated it to be, he (Earl Grey) was
bound to declare, that it was contrary to the Consti-
tution, and that Parliament could not too soon pass',
this Bill, declaring that practice illegal. This was a
most dangerous and monstrous power to give to the
Magistrates, especially in times when party ran so
high, and when their minds might, by party ex-
citements, he heated and inflamed. The Noble and
Learned Lord had called certain Libels the worst he
had ever seen ; but three successive Juries differed,
much to their honour, from the opinion of the Noble
and Learned Lord. INfrich to their honour, he would
say, because it was attempted to make that blasphe-
mous which was only intended as a means of politi-
cal atiac!:. If that man sinned, he did it with great
authorities, even of some of Isis Nlajr-ay's Ministers,
and of publications disseminated by them with great
industry.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL said, there was no
ground for bringing this q•restion before th • House at
so late a period of the Session. if there was any doubt
on the law why nit try the question in Weiaminstet-
? By a decision of those Courts general war-
rants were declared to be illegal ; and the same course
might be adopted as to commitments for Libel. If
the Libels that had been alluded to had been pro-
nounced not so by three Juries in London, those very
publications ware declared Libels by Juries in Lan-
cashire. Such blasphemous publications were most
mischievous and wicked, with whatever intention
they might be made public.
Lord HOLLAND said, that where those Publica-
tions had been declared Libels, it was in cases where
there was no defence, and judgment suffered to go
by default. Those were Parodies on the Govern-
ment ; and without them we should not have had
the feeling defences of morality and religion, which
had fallen from the Noble Lord on tfie Woolsack ;
and, on a former occasion, from a Right Reverend
Prelate. Ile should. never have had such exhorta-

Their Lordships then divided on tile question for
the hearing of Counsel—Contents, 1::—Not-contei:ts,
V.—Majority, 10.

LAW OF L:BEL.

On our re-admission to the !louse, we found

Lord ERSKINE urging the adoption of his Bill
for declaring or amendirg the existing Law of Libel.
His Lordship referred to various legal authorities,
many of remote standing, but more particularly the
recent authority of Lord Chief Justice Camden, in
support of the positions which he advanced. The
leading point for which he contended, and what he
wished to be incontrovertibly established by means
of the Bill in question, was that Justices of the Peace
had, strictly spearing, no legal right to commit or
hold individuals to bail on charges of libel before in-
dictments were found; and, as a secondary position,
that such a power could not possibly be legally exer-
cised after the passing of the Libel Act of 1792. He
contended, that Justices of the Peace never attempted
to commit, even for acts of felony, before indictment
was found, previously to the 14th of Henry VIII.
He likewise argued for an important contradistinc-
tion'between a breach of the peace and that which
had a tendency to that effect. lie adverted to some