would the House consent, to act as the accuser of persons who were in its opinion not only guiltless, but meritorious. A great deal had been said of the thanks given by the ministers to the magistrates, because it was alleged that time had not been taken to inquire into the circumstances. But the magistrates were public functionaries, and surely, when they said that under such and such circumstances they had acted so and so, his majesty's ministers were bound to receive their statement as true, until it was proved to be false. If the statement of the magistrates had been found to be false, so far from being bound by their declaration, the ministers would have been justified in proceeding against them with the greater severity. The hon. member for Shrewsbury had said, that captain Birley's character had not been attacked in or out of the House. As to the House, the statement was correct, but in Manchester captain Birley's character was attacked in the most mischievous manner by a placard in a shop window. As to the dismissal of lord Fitzwilliam, he believed that nobleman to be as honourable a man, and as loyal a subject, as ever existed; but he thought, that if it was only that he differed from the ministers, not only in the mode of quelling the disturbances in his district, but even as to the nature of those disturbances-this alone would have been a sufficient reason for his removal. Besides this, the lord lieutenant was not merely the servant of the Crown, but of the ministers, and though lord Fitzwilliam would have been called upon by duty (entertaining such sentiments as he did), to demand an audience from the Prince Regent, to lay before him his opinion as to the conduct of the ministers; yet he was not justified in attending a meeting, to throw blame on the ministers for their conduct in the very department in which he had to obey their commands. But he followed the dictates of his conscience, and there was no disgrace in his dismissal. It was not more a disgrace for lord F. to differ from the ministers, than for the ministers to differ from him. As to parliamentary reform, before he (lord Compton) consented to enter into the consideration of that subject, he must be satisfied of two things; first, that the alteration of the constitution of parliament would be in a beneficial direction; and, second, that it would not go farther than he wished. What appeared to him an almost insuperable (VOL. XLI.)

objection to an attempt to reform the House, was, that if any interest was already too strong in it, the result of the change in its constitution by the same body, would be to make that interest stronger. He was extremely surprised at the language held by one hon. member, who seemed to consider that the Manchester magistrates had shown an unbecoming eagerness for shedding human blood. For his part, he thought they had proved themselves anxious to avoid shedding blood, and that they had, by their judicious measures, saved perhaps the town of Manchester-saved the lives of a large portion of the multitude that had been dispersed, and vindicated the majesty of the laws.

Mr. Hume thought some of the remarks which had been made were founded on a misrepresentation of what had fallen from him, which misrepresentation, however, he had not seen.

Mr. Valentine Blake said:-I beg to assure the House, that, after the ample discussion which this subject has received, I shall feel it to be my duty to say but a very few words. I am not vain enough to imagine, that it can be in my power to alter the opinion of any hon. member, whose view of this subject is different from my own; but when I consider the vast importance of the question before the House, its consequence not only with regard to the rights of the people, but also to the rights, independence, and character of the parliament, and even the very existence of the constitution, and when, to my very great amazement, I find a course adopted by the hon. gentlemen on the other side, equally new, unnecessary, and pernicious, supported by arguments futile and dangerous too, no consciousness of my own inability to do the subject that justice which it has received from others, shall deter me from recording my sentiments in justification to my constituents of the vote which I have given, in the discharge of the most solemn duty which I may ever be called upon to perform towards them. In the first place, I think it right to observe upon a part of what fell last night from an hon. and learned gentleman. That hon. and learned gentleman recommended conciliation and clemency; and I admit the principle, as I am sure every man does who votes on this side of the House, if applied at the proper season. But it is not when sedition and blasphemy and avowed treason go hand (z)

in hand with such alarming strides, that I would have recourse to measures which would be misrepresented by the disaffected, and called weakness. I would, in such circumstances, put on a firm resolution to suppress open rebellion, even if it went to that (as I sincerely hope it will not), and after having done so, I would then turn round and put on that air of clemency and conciliation so recommended by the hon. and learned gentleman. In taking this course I do not think that I could be charged with inconsistency; and therefore the imputation upon this identical point with respect to the inconsistency of the right hon. and learned gentleman, whose speech brought conviction to every unprejudiced mind, and whose life has been one uniform instance of political consistency and sacrifice appears to me to be wholly unfounded. The hon. baronet was not more happy than the hon. and learned gentleman in his attack upon the same quarter, and the ridicule which he attempted to throw upon the speech of the right hon. and learned gentleman must revert upon himself; for, surely, the hon. baronet cannot be so ignorant as not to know that the civil force of a parish or a district is not vested in the parish constables only, but in the magistracy of the county, with powers ample enough to warrant them in putting down a meeting so numerous as must be dangerous to the public peace, and the more especially so, when the temper and spirit of the persons who compose that meeting have been previously manifested by a training to military exercise, for the purpose, avowedly, of revolution. How such a meeting can be termed legal is astonishing, and only shows how far prejudice and party will cloud the best mind and the honestest judgment. The hon. and learned gentleman, who spoke this night on the other side, rose, as he said, for the particular purpose of giving a legal opinion in favour of the meeting; and having listened to him with anxiety, I never was more astonished than when that hon. and learned gentleman sat down, forgetting the express purpose for which he rose. I am perfectly sure that if a client went to that hon. and learned gentleman in his professional capacity, he would never think of giving his opinion without his reasons, because such an opinion would be looked upon as nothing; and from this it is fair to infer, that the hon. and learned gentleman has no reason

to give. Another hon. and learned gentleman, who just sat down, gave a like opinion, and threw the weight of his authority into a scale opposed to that of the right hon. and learned gentleman, whose opinion, not only as to the illegality of the Manchester meeting, but of other meetings, was authenticated by the speech of the hon. and learned gentleman who spoke on the first night's debate from the floor, and who used the fact as a means of accusation against the law officers of the Crown, for not having prosecuted the offenders. But who, I will ask, ever heard of a prosecution against a multitude? That hon. and learned gentleman declared that he would, out of respect for the right hon. and learned gentleman who preceded him, consume a reasonable time in his reply, but although the time which he did consume was certainly very unreasonable, considering the matter of his speech, he did not consume one particle of the sound reasoning and unanswerable argument of the right hon. and learned gentleman. The hon. and learned gentleman by a long course of extensive employment, has raised himself in the estimation of every man (and in none more than in mine) to the head of his profession; but I hope it will not be deemed improper of me to say, that he ought as much as possible to refrain from legal device as a legislator. It must have happened to the hon. and learned gentleman, that when he was concerned on the wrong side, and found himself unable to meet the facts and the arguments of his adversary, as in the present instance, he found it for the benefit of his client to make a hash of those facts, and so to mix them up as to make them unintelligible, and thus to mislead the jury; but, surely, that course which would be advisable and proper for him to take as a pleader, ought to be repudiated by him as a judge; yet the contrary has taken place. Besides which, the hon. and learned gentleman had the candor to impute special pleading to a speech, which can only be justly appreciated, when its effects are considered after the display of talent and legal knowledge and eloquence to which it was a reply. The hon. and learned gentleman, I am astonished to say, also thought that it was necessary at this time of day, to go about to prove that the right of the subject to petition was a right which could not be taken away without annihilation of the constitution-but this was an extraordi

narily unnecessary course. Who is it that does not admit the right? Yet if it was disputed, the record to which the hon. and learned gentleman adverted would have been but poor authority, when the circumstances of the times which it referred to are considered, especially when it is known that then in reality the king disputed the right, and went to such lengths as to induce the hon. members of that day to go to the House armed, pre pared to fight, and not to deliberate. This right is not, nor ever shall be, with my aid, disputed, but I look upon an abuse of the right as most dangerous, even to its own existence, and therefore I will resist it. The liberty of the press is a valuable right; but what does a libel consist of but in an abuse of that liberty. The right to petition is also a most valuable right; but is a flagitious and flagrant abuse of it to be tolerated to an extent which would, by its explosion, produce revolution, with all its attendant horrors, as lately exemplified in France? while the guilty libeller is punished for a crime certainly much less dangerous, because less rapid in its effect. I have but one word more to offer; hon. gentlemen on the other side have often thrown out against us who support the government, charges of the most abominable corruption; but it is time to retaliate, and I will not shrink from the undertaking; individually, I confess, I respect and admire those hon. gentlemen denominated the Whigs of this day, but as a party I must point at the fallen image which they have so long worshipped. In the infancy of that party perhaps I would have admired its principles; in its growth I would have feared them; in its manhood I opposed them; and now, in the hour of its final dissolution, I despise them. Power, power, power (no matter by what means acquired) was their constant object; blinded by this passion, and goaded on by continual disappointment, they have at length delivered themselves over (with out intending it) to the projects of disaffection and treason. It is in vain that they have laboured and tortured this fair inference, in order to separate themselves from their new allies; the impression has gone abroad, and will never be effaced. The substantial principles of this party have long since vanished; even the name, to which they would still fondly cling, is gone, and nothing remains to them but political distrust, insignificance, and ruin.

The report was then agreed to; and the Address was ordered to be printed by the whole House.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Monday, November 29.

MISDEMEANORS BILL.] The Lord Chancellor rose to introduce a bill. He begged leave to assure their lordships, that it did not arise out of the circumstances of the times. It was well known that it had been his intention to introduce this bill, whether the circumstances which at present called for their consideration had occurred or not. He then proceeded to describe the object of the bill. He stated, that it was the practice of the courts to allow defendants, in cases of information or indictments to imparle or traverse. The effect of which was, to gain time till the next term or sessions. The effect of this practice had been, in several instances, that the trials of individuals against whom informations had been filed, or indictments found, had been so delayed that the prosecution failed to answer any of the purposes for which it was commenced. His object, therefore, in the present bill, was, to take away the right of imparling or traversing, by compelling the parties to plead in the term or at the sessions in which the information should be filed or the indictment found, unless, upon any special grounds urged, the court should think proper to allow the parties to imparle or traverse.

This would prevent

those unnecessary delays to which he had already adverted, without in any way interfering with substantial justice. His lordship presented the bill, which was read a first time.

He

Lord Holland wished to understand distinctly the object of the bill. He had not caught sufficiently the expressions of the noble and learned lord to understand whether the bill was intended equally to apply to imparling and traversing, to prevent both, or in what particular way it was in that respect to operate. wished, therefore, for further information upon those points. There was another point also respecting which he wished to know whether any provision was introduced into the bill-he alluded to informations filed ex officio by the attorneygeneral. He wished to know whether there was any provision by which that

officer, in case of his not proceeding after a certain time upon an information, might be compelled either to go on or to enter a nolle prosequi? He wished likewise to be informed, whether any provision was introduced into the bill for the purpose of enabling the court to grant a copy of an information or indictment to the defendant, at the public expense? As, according to what had been stated by the noble and learned lord, the defendant was to be hurried on to his trial much more rapidly than at present, it seemed more than ever necessary that some provision should be made, by means of which he should be enabled to know the precise nature of the charge against him. If this were not the case, the bill would appear to do every thing for the prosecution and nothing for the defendant.

The Lord Chancellor said, that what was called imparling in civil actions, was more generally known by the name of traversing in cases of prosecution for misdemeanor, and it was the right arising out of this practice, which it was the object of the bill to take away, except in those cases where, from special circumstances, the court, either of king's-bench or at the sessions, should deem it advisable to allow the party the benefit of traversing. Respecting ex officio informations, there was no provision in the bill, but it would be, of course, competent to any noble lord, in the progress of the bill, to move any clause he might think requisite. Neither was there any provision in the bill with regard to the granting of copies of informations or indictments to defendants at the public expense. Every court, however, would of course feel it to be a duty that a defendant (who must of course, know the general nature of the charge against him) should be made acquainted with the precise nature of the charges against him contained in any information. or indictment on which he was to be tried.

The bill was ordered to be printed.

BLASPHEMOUS LIBELS-SEIZURE OF ARMS-TRAINING PREVENTION BILLS.] Lord Sidmouth rose to call the attention of their lordships to the measures which the ministers of his royal highness the Prince Regent thought it necessary to propose in the present situation of the country. He trusted that their lordships would find those measures to be such as would suit the necessity of the case, with

out going beyond it; and to combine a due regard to the right of the subject, with that consideration which was due to the safety of the state. It was unnecessary for him to go into any detail of the danger in which the country was placed; that was admitted: it was known, that a conspiracy existed for the subversion of the constitution and of the rights of property; and that it was intended to subvert the fabric of the constitution in church and state. Among the means adopted for the accomplishment of this end, it was with grief he had to state, that the press was one of the principal. It had greatly contributed to produce the danger against which their lordships had to guard. It was a subject of most melancholy regret that the free press, which had hitherto been the glory of this country, and had contributed so much to its greatness from a shield and guard of liberty, should become an instrument of its destruction. Yet this was what their lordships had witnessed. That act which was calculated to instruct and console, was perverted to rob mankind of all hope of future happiness; because it was supposed, that when the people of this country were deprived of all the consolations of religion, they would be the better prepared to throw off their allegiance, and lose their accustomed respect for the laws and the constitution.

He should now state to their lordships, as accurately as possible, the nature of the measures which were at the present crisis thought necessary to meet the enormous evil he had described. It was the great character of a free press that its productions were not interfered with before publication; but that when the publication took place, if it should be considered to be injurious to morals, to religion, or to the good order of society, it then became liable to prosecution. În the bill which he was about to describe to their lordships, as one of those to be submitted to their consideration, this great principle, on which the free press was founded, was not invaded. It had been, indeed, in consideration, but for a moment only, whether some step ought not to be taken preliminary to publication; but that idea was immediately discarded, as inconsistent with the principle to which he had referred. The bill he had first to propose to their lordships, had not in view to visit offenders with increased punishment in the first instance; but, in case of

the repetition of any seditious or blasphemous libel, it was thought advisable that an additional punishment should be inflicted. It was therefore proposed, that any person, having been tried, convicted, and punished for a seditious or blasphemous libel, should, on conviction of a second offence, be liable, at the discretion of the court, to the punishment of fine, imprisonment, banishment, or transportation. It was also proposed that, in such cases of second conviction, a power should be given to seize the copies of the libel in the possession of the publisher: the copies so seized to be preserved until it should be seen whether an arrest of judgment was moved, and then to be returned to the publisher, if the judgment of the court should be in his favour. These were the chief provisions of a bill which he should have the honour to submit to their lordships; but he might here be permitted to advert to what was intended to be proposed in another place, in order that a distinct view might be obtained of the whole of the measures which his majesty's ministers thought it their duty to recommend. The principle of the bill which he had next to explain, he must acknowledge, was not similar to that which he had just described. It was intended to propose, that all publications, consisting of less than a given number of sheets, should be subject to a duty equal to that paid by newspapers. This might, perhaps, be said to be breaking in, in some degree, on the principle laid down in introducing the previous bill to the knowledge of the House. It would be for their lordships, however, to consider the necessity of the occasion, and to say, whether this degree of infringement of the principle was not indispensable, in order to check the progress of blasphemy and sedition. Another provision of this bill would be, that persons putting forth a publication of the kind to which he had adverted should be required to enter into recognizances, or give security of their ability to pay any penalty which might be inflicted on them. A great feature in the evil which their lordships were called upon to correct, arose from the assemblages of great bodies of people. Those assemblages were influenced by seditious publications and itinerant demagogues, who availed themselves but too successfully of the present state of the laws, in order to bring great bodies of people together from different parts of the country. As the law

now stood, any individual might issue his mandate to bring together all the idle and curious part of the population of the country at any time, or in any place he pleased. The persons who had called these meetings considered themselves empowered (whether legally or not was not at present the question) to attend them with martial music, flags, and banners, all of which ensigns, independently of that flagitious standard displayed at Manchester, and which was so indicative of the designs of those who bore it, were of a nature calculated to produce disorder and alarm. He should now state to their lordships, what were the provisions of the bill by which it was proposed to obviate the danger arising from such tumultuous and seditious meetings. In the first place, he could assure them, that it was not intended to interfere with the right of the subject to petition the Prince Regent or parliament, or to meet for the discussion of any grievance under which the people might conceive that they were labouring; but it would be seen, by reference to the bills on the table, that one of the principal causes of the agitation, alarm, and disorder which at present prevailed in the country, was, in addition to the licentiousness of the press, the assembling of great bodies of people to hear the harangues of itinerant orators. Nothing would be introduced into the bill that would tend to impede or interrupt meetings regularly called by a sheriff, boroughreeve, or other magistrate; but it would be proposed to enact, that if any parties should be desirous of meeting for the consideration of subjects connected with the church or state, their intention should be notified by arequisition, signed by seven householders, and that it should be illegal for any person not usually inhabiting the place for which such meeting was called to attend it. In another provision, it was proposed to give to the magistrates the power, with some limitations, of appointing the place and time of the meeting.

These, according to the best of his recollection, were the leading provisions of the bill relative to public meetings, which, with the preceding bill, would be introduced in another place. He had now to call their lordships attention to another measure which he should have to submit to their consideration. It appeared, from the correspondence now before parliament, that the persons who agitated the country by large assemblages, emboldened