avert such a crisis. Libels like that now before them endangered not only the usefulness, but also the existence of the House: but the greatness and the dignity of the House had been maintained, ought to be maintained, and, he trusted, would still be maintained, against the new sect which had risen up amongst us, and whose object was anarchy and desolation. and to the refusal of inquiry. The House upon that occasion had exercised a discre. tionary power. No argument could, in the present case, be founded upon that. Whether the House had done right or wrong then, their conduct afforded no argument now. He had taken no part in that discussion, more from accident than any other cause; but the House had the power of instituting an inquiry if it chose to exert it. Its powers were less adequate to the purpose than those of any of the courts below; but it might have exercised its powers. It had been said by those who were for inquiry, that it might be conducted at the bar; that it might be referred to a committee, or that the attorney-general might be instructed to prosecute. He knew not what course the hon. gentlemen meant to adopt: whether he proposed that the House should be judge in its own case, than which nothing was more common in the best times; or that the attorney-general should be instructed to prosecute, which was also common: whatever course might be adopted, he would ask even the hon. baronet, whether the House were not fit to judge of the merits of this case. He had never read a grosser libel. It was a libel tending to produce revolution and anarchy [Hear, hear !] tending to excite physical, or, as the writer called it, "brute force." It was a direct incentive to pull the members out by the ears, to lock the door, and to throw the key into the Thames. The hon. baronet said, the House would be guilty of great injustice, if it adopted the proposed proceeding, and assumed such powers. But the privileges of the House existed for the defence of the people, and for the protection of the people. That House could not exist without maintaining its power and authority. The hon. baronet and his friends thought the present constitution bad, and wished to new-model it. God forbid that they should have any hand in the new-modelling of the constitution. It should be his object, while he had a seat in that House, to resist the new modelling of it by such hands. That constitution, under which we had grown up and flourished, was said by the hon. baronet to be inconsistent with justice but Mr. Douglas Kinnaird said, that as he must say, that if the public mind was only an isolated passage had been read to be worked upon by such gross and from the pamphlet, doubts might reasonseditious libels, that House, the constitu- ably arise in the minds of hon. members, tion, and the administration of justice, who had not read the tract from which would soon be overthrown. His best en- it had been taken, as to whether it was or deavours should be always exerted to was not libellous [A laugh]. Having Lord John Russell thought the question now brought before the House the most ill-advised, and the most imprudent that could possibly have been brought before them. When there were so many seditious libels throughout the country-when in the papers on their table was found a resolution, that after the 1st of January 1820, no obedience ought to be paid to parliament, why should this passage be selected for the judgment of the House? If notice was to be taken of every libel, why was there no notice of the resolution he had mentioned, of similar resolutions at other meetings, of the "Medusa" and the "Republican," every one of which was an offence against the privileges of the House? But the House had the power of prosecuting all libels, either by itself or by the attorney-general; and it had the power of passing laws to prevent or to punish the repetition of those libels. But, to cull out one of the many seditious libellers, and to be satisfied with passing bills respecting the rest, was a measure which did not become the justice of that House. The privileges of the House had been intended, as the hon. baronet had truly said, to protect members against violations of justice which might be committed by the officers of the crown. But cases of privilege were now little else than complaints of libels in newspapers. Extraordinary cases might call for the notice of the House; but they ought never to be noticed unless they should be such as the House could not pass over. The passage now brought forward had appeared in a publication out of doors, among many others at least as objectionable. To save time, he would move as an amendment, that Robert Stoddart be called to the bar on the 18th of January next. read the whole of the pamphlet himself, he should take the liberty of stating, that he was satisfied in his own mind, that, looking at the entire context of the passage complained of, any conclusion might be drawn from it, rather than that come to by the hon. member on the floor; namely, that it was meant as an excite. ment to rebellion, and that its object was, to instigate the people to pull out the members by the ears, lock up their doors, and fling the key of the House into the Thames. What was the real meaning of the passage? That fear of the laws, and not love, restrained the people. It was a proposition that might be stated of any law that was not mild, but coercive. That was his impression. If that impression--namely, that fear, not love, restrained the people-was not supported by reasons and arguments, it was only an unfounded conclusion, not a libel. Lord Nugent begged to say three words in explanation of the vote he meant to give. He should vote for the original motion. He concurred so far with his noble friend behind him, as to think that his majesty's ministers had criminally neglected their duty, in not instructing the attorney-general to prosecute other libels perhaps more atrocious. But that was no reason why he should not vote for the present motion, when he saw the privileges of the House so outrageously attacked in the face of the country. The hon. member who had last night mentioned this publication had ascribed it to a particular individual. He would not do so, but he would say that it bore internal proofs, in its style and mode of reasoning, that it proceeded from the pen of a person who was a worthy victim for the House to strike. The motion was not for committing to the custody of the sergeant at arms, or to Newgate. The spirit of the object was, after ascertaining from the printer who the author was, to direct the attorney-general to lay both the law and the facts before a jury of the country. He was not willing to give up the privileges of the House, connected, as he believed them to be, with the rights and liberties of the people. These were not times in which those privileges ought to be surrendered or qualified. He was aware of the obloquy and misrepresentation to which he should be exposed by his conduct on this occasion; but if he were not prepared to suffer obloquy and maisrepresentation in the discharge of his duty, he was not qualified to do that duty. So long as they were there, in a House constituted as that was-he would that some of them were there on other terms-but so long as they were there, they must support their dignity and their privileges. Mr. Courtenay said, that his sole object at present was, to call the publisher to the bar. He did not pledge himself afterwards to any particular line of conduct. Mr. Wilberforce said, that although he had been many years a member of that House, he was not well acquainted with privileges or precedents, but he was led by instinctive feelings to join in censuring what attacked the substance of dignity and authority in parliament. The passage now read appeared to him a gross and scandalous libel, not only against the privileges, but against the existence of the House. He had seldom been more surprised than when he heard an hon. member say that any person might doubt whether this passage was a libel or not. It was the nature of the moral faculty, as well as of our natural feeling, to doubt the existence of a weaker ingredient, when accustomed to a stronger ingredient. It might be so with the hon. member, who was perhaps so much accustomed to strong libels, that he doubted whether this was a libel. The hon. member had explained his meaning by saying, that it was only an assertion that fear restrained the people more than love. Mr. Hume, in one of his celebrated essays, had remarked, that "all government was founded on opinion, opinion of interest or opinion of right." It would have been absurd to suppose that Mr. Hume should have been called to the bar of the House for that expression. But all depended on the terms used, and the tendency of the language. If it were said, that the passage contained nothing but the truth, it must at least be admitted that the truth had been very boldly expressed. The expression was, that the members of that House might, on a certain supposition, be dragged out by the ears. He could not conceive a more plain and open incitement, couched in grosser language; he could imagine no words more likely to produce the effect of carrying the doctrine which they imported into execution. A disposition to insult the House was too easily infused, and if it was treated with mildness, would only gain strength and become inveterate. He had, indeed, heard of a story which represented that a threat to kick a person down stairs ought to be understood only as a hint of disapprobation. It certainly appeared to him, that there were strong grounds for the House animadverting on this subject, though he was by no means decided as to the most eligible course of proceeding. It evidently was not a case with regard to which the House ought to recede from the vindication of its dignity: for no distinction in favour of this particular case could, he thought, be made out. The hon. member had, in fact, conceded that the publication was libellous. Now, what difference was there between a prosecution, and a carrying of the law into effect? Still it was uncertain which was the most expedient mode by which the House ought to maintain its authority, and assert those privileges which were not established for its own sake, but for the interests of those whom it represented. But wherever it was possible consistently with those privileges, he deemed it more advisable to address the Crown, praying that it would direct the attorney-general to institute a prosecution. The only question with him was, whether this case was within that general rule, or whether it did not call upon the House to mark its displeasure, by the exertion of its own powers. He was sure that he was influenced by no personal feelings in what he now said; and he was equally sure that a great part of the people took an interest in the credit of that House. This was at least the impression made on his mind by all he had seen and heard; and he recollected that at the time when he represented the county of York, and was known to entertain sentiments favourable to a moderate reform, the majority of his constituents differed from him on that subject. They did not, however, wish him to defer implicitly to their opinions; for they knew that he would not be a slave; no, not even to the county of York. No doubt could exist in his mind upon this point-that it was the duty of the House to vindicate itself from contumely and outrage. He was willing to distinguish between loose and unguarded expressions, and those which appeared to convey an advised and deliberate meaning. He would not refer to the name of the supposed author; but when he heard it said that the context might lead to another construction of the passage, he could not help observing, that the hon. member who urged this consideration would hardly have been so wanting to the defence which he undertook, as not to read that context, if he thought it would really assist his argument. His not doing so was, in fact, a presumption against him. It gave him sincere regret to find language of the same kind addressed almost every day to those who had no means of avoiding the delusion, and principles disseminated which would tend to the overthrow of all that was venerable amongst us. They who so addressed themselves to the public had no intention of becoming martyrs to their own doctrines: their love of liberty was not so ardent as to expose them to any serious peril; but, whilst they kept themselves within the boundaries of safety, they inflamed and incited others to give a loose to the worst of passions, exhibiting all that was contemptible for baseness, with all that was odious for wickedness, and trifling with the security as well as the greatness and renown of their country. Mr. Douglas Kinnaird said, that the reason he had abstained from reading any part of the pamphlet was, because he would not presume to read the whole of it to the House, without which a fair judgment of its object could not be formed. The passage which had made such an impression on the House was only an incidental one, not contributing to the author's main or professed object. He did not profess to institute an express examination into the state of the House of Commons, but only entitled his pamphlet "A Trifling Mistake," &c.-The hon. member was prevented from continuing by cries of Spoke, spoke!" Mr. Hume rose, amidst continued calls of " question!" and symptoms of impatience. He said, he was sorry to differ from many hon. members as to the best mode of proceeding in this case. In the case of the complaint made last session, by the right hon. the president of the board of control against an individual for misrepresentation, the House passed a resolution declaratory of the offence, before they called the printer to the bar. He was aware that he was addressing an impatient House, and should therefore merely add, that he thought the course which the House seemed disposed to pursue was erroneous. Mr. Wynn was perfectly ready to agree to the original resolution, and at once to state his opinion that the language in question was a gross and glaring libel, and a direct incitement to the use of violence against the House. He should not follow the hon. baronet through all that reasoning which consisted in a denial of their privileges, and the reiteration of an argument which the hon. baronet had already carried into the courts below, and subsequently into the other House of parliament. The House of Lords had confirmed those privileges though he did not mean to admit that they had not before stood on ground sufficiently firm. With regard to the relation of this passage to the context, he must say, that having read the pamphlet, he thought the farther that context was examined, the more necessary would it appear that the dignity of the House and the authority of the law should be vindicated in this instance. He would now merely read part of the concluding passage, which seemed to him to contain an open incitement to violence and to a resistance of the law. The hon. member then read the following extract from page 52:"My determination, for one, is fixed: if those who have the power attempt to deprive me of the inalienable right of meeting my fellow countrymen, by letting loose a soldier at me, without the warning of an act of parliament, I will resist him if I can; if they do give me the warning of an act of parliament, I will break it if I can. I consider the object exactly the same, the injustice equally calling for resistance; the mere additional ceremony is not worth the statute-paper; the time, the means, the occasion, must of course make part of the prudential question, which every man must determine for himself, and concerning which I do not wish to be his prompter." Could any man of common sense doubt the import and meaning of this passage? He must confess he could not concur with the argument in favour of a prosecution. Upon this subject he adhered to the principle maintained both by Mr. Fox and Mr. Burke, whom he regarded as the greatest authorities on all points of constitutional law-that the House lowered its tone, and weakened its authority, whenever it sought assistance from other courts. As to the objection, of the House acting both as accuser and judge, what was there strange in that? Was not every court invested with an authority to issue process, and if not obeyed, to treat it as a contempt? Had they not power to compel a party in such a case to answer interrogatories? and was a power exercised by all the minor courts in the kingdom to be denied to the supreme court of parliament ? He knew that some persons thought it better to let such offences pass unnoticed; but, for his own part, he doubted the policy of thus manifesting their contempt. If the courts of law were charged with injustice and partiality, or if the judges were openly accused of acting with no other motive than that of currying favour with the court, would not the libellers be punished? Could their functions be discharged, or their authority maintained, if such attacks were suffered to be made with impunity? Why, then, should the privileges of that House, which were held on behalf of the people, be alone subjected to insult and invasion? The House must recollect the many errors and atrocities to which a breach of their pri vileges had led. How often had parliament been misled by giving way to an influence out of doors. The attainder of lord Strafford was procured by means of placards distributed about the streets. He agreed that they ought now to put out of view the individual reputed to be the author. But his supposed rank and situation might become important matters to be considered. The offence had, it was clear, not been committed unadvisedly, and the circumstances to which he had just referred constituted a strong ground for separating this from the great majority of such cases. Lord Nugent observed, that he had been misconceived by his hon. relation who had just sat down. What he had said was, that he did not think it always expedient to pursue the same course, and that there might be cases in which the House might act incautiously in trusting to the Crown for directing a prosecution. The question was then put, and the original resolution being carried, Robert Stodart was ordered to be in attendance on Monday next. SEIZURE OF ARMS BILL.] Lord Castlereagh having moved the order of the day for the second reading of this bill, Mr. Tierney said, he had no intention whatever to provoke a debate in the present stage of the measure. His objection was not so much to the principle of the bill, which was local and temporary, as to certain provisions of it. Therefore he thought it most advisable to let it pass the second reading and go into the committee, where perhaps the amendments might be adopted, which he thought requisite. If not, there were two subsequent stages at which it might be opposed. A clause to which he most strongly objected was one empowering one justice, on any informa-perty already parcelled out [a laugh]. tion, to grant his warrant for entering Mr. Lambton hoped the noble lord Lord Castlereagh said, he had read the communication referred to by the hon. member. But the evidence it afforded did not go the length that the hon. member seemed to imagine. It merely stated that the county was not in a state of tumult at that time, without venturing to assert that tranquillity would be permanent. Now, it had never been alleged, that the county was in a state of actual tumult, but only in such a state as might lead to tumult. The letter was written to lord Sidmouth, in consequence of an application to certain magistrates to call out the yeomanry, by the commanding officer at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, he considering an additional military force necessary for the security of the county. The letter conveyed intelligence of this application, and added what he had before mentioned, as the opinion of the writer. The South Tyne corps had in fact been put on duty in consequence of the commanding officer's wish. This was the only document he had seen. out some commanding military force, there was an end to all security-that arms were provided, and the landed proAn hon. member opposite might be more interested than he was aware of, and if he knew the source of this information as well as he did, would come to the same judgment. At many of these meetings reform was, indeed, the professed object, but not any reform of that House, even upon the wild scheme of universal suffrage. The reform contemplated, and for which they seemed to entertain an enthusiastic desire, was a transfer of property from those who now enjoyed it to those who did not. Mr. Lambton said, that were it not for the disagreeable nature of the subject, he should have been extremely amused at some of the observations of the hon. gentleman, but the subject was too serious for mirth. Yet he thought it a little extraordinary that a gentleman who had not been for some years in the county of Durham, and who, when he did reside there, lived some miles distant from the people against whom he had preferred such heavy charges, should come down to the House and make assertions concerning persons exactly opposite to what he (Mr. L.) had stated, who lived amongst them, and had caused the most diligent inquiry to be made into their conduct. He then described the contents of a letter he had received from a person who had a few days before been present at a meeting of owners of coal-mines, where the fact of the colliers having arms happened to be discussed, but not one among them could affirm the fact of his own knowledge. He stated, however, that the colliers had been pretty generally classed, but that that practice was very much abating, and that it had prevailed among the colliers only, and not among the smiths, or any other description of workMr. Wharton declared that his informamen. He never recollected any year in tion was of the most alarming kind. A which the men were more anxious to work system of communication had been esta--he did not remember one idle day blished throughout extensive districts in Durham and Yorkshire, and the spirit of disaffection was on the point of exhibiting itself in armed force. The colliers and pit-men were thoroughly organized, and assembled every day in parties of twenty, their leaders assembling every week. A letter which he had received from a gentleman in that part of the country, and one not easily alarmed, stated, that with among them, but that of the meeting at Newcastle. He had also seen a gentleman from one of the villages to which he had before alluded, who represented every thing there as perfectly quiet. This intelligence had been confirmed by another gentleman from that county, with whom he had recently had a conversation. He had informed him, that many of the persons classed as radicals had left the |