ment. He could not, at that moment, make any observation on the proposed increase of the army; but when the noble lord brought forward the proposition, it would be for him to demonstrate the necessity of such a measure in time of peace.

Sir B. Martin said, the duty of the dock-yards was formerly executed by the marine corps, and it was always highly desirable that it should be performed by them. That which was now proposed was therefore nothing more than merely reverting to the ancient system.

Sir G. Warrender stated, that with respect to the guard-ships it was not intended to make any alteration in the system which had been approved of by the House last year, and which rendered that species of force more efficacious. The reasons, founded chiefly on a principle of economy, which he had detailed to the House in the last session, operated to reduce the number of guard-ships. But, if the hon. baronet supposed them to be in a state of inefficiency, he had formed an erroneous opinion. With respect to the armament destined for South America, to which the hon. baronet had alluded, it was not fitted out so tardily as he imagined. One of the vessels, the Superb, commanded by sir T. Hardy, was in the Sound, with all her stores on board, in four days after the orders were issued for her equipment, and her complement of men was speedily completed. With respect to the increased number of marines, it would be most advantageous. If an armament were ordered to be equipped, these men would be ready for service, and the military might undertake the dock-yard duty, as before.

that that number was not quite enough; but, by the proposition now made, it appeared that there would be an increase of 2,000 more.

Sir G. Warrender said, that gentlemen were not correct in supposing that the dock-yard duty was entirely performed by the military of late years. The fact was, a part of that duty had always been intrusted to the corps of marines.

Mr. Tierney said, he had no objection to the increase of the marines, but he did not like that, to the same extent, the military force should also be increased, which would evidently be the effect of the present measure.

Mr. Croker said, it was impossible to deny that this arrangement would relieve that portion of the army which was now employed in the dock-yards, and pro tanto, would increase the disposable military force. The number of men that would be relieved by this additional vote of marines was about 1,200.

The motion was then agreed to. Sir G. Warrender then moved, "That a sum not exceeding 650,325l. be granted to his majesty, for wages of the said 23,000 men, for 13 lunar months, at the rate of 2l. 3s. 6d. per man per month," also, "that 612,950l. be granted, for victuals for the said 23,000 men, for 13 lunar months, at the rate of 21. 1s. per man per month."

Mr. Baring asked, what was the reason that the charge for victuals was 1s. per man per month greater than it was in the vote of last session?

Sir G. Warrender could not state the exact reason, but the officers who made the estimate found that the addition was necessary.

Sir B. Martin said, the sum voted last year was found to be inadequate, and it was necessary that the charge should be fully covered. Therefore the additional shilling was put on, and for no other reason.

House on what ground he made it. It was the paramount duty of that House to inquire into all appropriations of money, and therefore he called for information.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that the vote of last sesion was insufficient, and therefore it was proposed on this oc

casion to vote 1s. more per man per month; because, on calculation, it was found that such an increase was necessary to meet the expenditure.

Sir G. Warrender said, in proposing this vote, he relied on the judgment and opinion of those gentlemen who belonged to the department and whose duty it was to look into and consider the subject. Better authority he thought he could not have. He could not presume to go into minor details of this kind; and when he received from official authority, a state. ment that such a charge was correct, and that it must be laid before parliament, he felt himself justified in coming down to the House and proposing the vote.

Mr. Baring considered it to be the duty of the hon. baronet, when he called for any augmented vote, to state the grounds on which he applied for such augmentation. The estimates should be moved by some person who could give to the House all necessary information on the subject.

The motion was then agreed to.

NEWSPAPER STAMP DUTIES BILL.] The House having resolved itself into a committee on the Stamp Duties act of the 56th of the King, c. 56,

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that he should decline discussing the principle on which the resolution which he had now to move was founded, as it would most probably come before the House immediately, on another occasion. He had thought it his duty to introduce it to the House, because a considerable fraud had been committed on the revenue, by means of the pamphlets against which his measure was intended, and because a considerable invasion had also been made by them upon the property of the regular newspapers. He then handed up his resolution to the chairman, which was as follows: "That all Pamphlets, or Papers commonly so called, and all other papers containing public news, or intelligence or occurrences, or any remarks or observations, address, or letter thereon, or upon any matter established in Church or State, printed in any part of the United King. dom, to be dispersed and made public, which shall not exceed two sheets, or which shall be sold or exposed to sale for a less sum than six-pence, exclusive of the Duty to be charged thereon, shall be deemed and taken to be Newspapers with in the meaning of the several Acts in

force relating to Newspapers in Great-Britain and Ireland respectively, and be subject to the like Duties of Stamps."

Mr. Brougham said, that as this was only a resolution preparatory to the bringing in of a bill upon the subject, he should not enter into the principle of it at any length, because, though the resolution entered into some details, it had not mentioned any of the exceptions which it was doubtless intended to allow. He should therefore only refer to one circumstance at present, which had been very incorrectly stated by the noble lord on a former night. He had not the slightest doubt of the misrepresentation which the noble lord had made being unintentional; he conceived it to have arisen from his not having seen, or from his not having considered the acts of parliament which already existed upon the subject. After the decided reprobation which he (Mr. Brougham) had passed upon the seditious and blasphemous libels which had ema. nated from the press in the course of the last three years, he did not expect that he should be suspected of too great a leaning towards them. He must, however, say, that nobody ought to be charged with more crimes than those of which they were actually guilty; and therefore he thought that it was not altogether right to charge men who were guilty of treason or blasphemy, with being also guilty of a fraud upon the revenue. He would show the House good reasons why the publishers of these pamphlets were not guilty of the charge which had that evening been brought against them. The words of the Stamp act, on which alone this charge had been substantiated, and upon which he had always given his opinion, when requested so to do, were Any newspaper or papers containing any news, intelligence, or occurrence.' From those words it was impossible to argue that a person who did not publish any news, intelligence, or occurrence, but merely commented upon them, was guilty of a fraud upon the revenue, because the loop. hole through which he escaped was evidently a loophole contemplated by the legisla ture. That this was the case would appear more clearly by considering the intention of the legislature. The act allowed not only individuals to publish every week, or at any other perodical intervals, such comments, but also contained a clause stating the terms on which they were to publish them. From the word

66

ing of this clause it had always been his opinion, that a man who published a pamphlet, containing mere comment, periodically, was not evading, much less defrauding the revenue. He had thought it requisite to make these observations, in consequence of what had fallen from the noble lord on a former occasion. He was clearly of opinion that nothing could be more dangerous to society, nothing more pernicious to the best interests of humanity, than what had recently gone forth to the world in these twopenny pamphlets, and his charge against ministers was, that they had not endeavoured to stop that torrent of blasphemy and sedition which had lately inundated the country, before it had arrived at its present height. The existing laws conferred on them sufficient power wherewith to have done it; and he would pledge himself to show, when the proper opportunity arrived, that they were more effectual for such purpose, than those new measures which the House was called upon to adopt, and that they would be the laws to which the ministers would ultimately be compelled to repair in order to punish offenders, even though they carried their present severe and extraordinary propositions.

Lord Castlereagh said, that he should imitate the example of his right hon. friend, and say very little upon the resolution now before the House, inasmuch as it was merely formal, and arose from the necessity which existed of having a recommendatory vote from the committee before it could be brought into the House, owing to its being a money bill. The bill was not in the hands of hon. members at present, and that gave him another reason for not discussing its enact ments at present. If, in the debate of a former evening on this subject, he had said any thing incorrect or offensive, he was ready instantly to retract it; but he had then quoted the case of one Journal which appeared to have taken the same view of the subject as he himself had done; it had originally paid the usual newspaper duty, but it now escaped it by passing under the name of a pamphlet. He thought some such legislative enactment as that which this resolution contemplated to be actually requisite to protect what he had called the respectable part of the press. An acquiescence in the resolution of that evening would not pledge hon. members to support the measures which might afterwards be founded upon it. (VOL. XLI.)

Mr. Brougham begged leave to inform the noble lord, that the publication to which he alluded, and which he believed to be Cobbett's [lord Castlereagh bowed assent,] did, at the time when it paid the duty, contain news, and especially when parliament was sitting; ever since it had ceased to pay the duty it contained no articles of public intelligence.

Sir M. W. Ridley entered his protest against the measure now proposed. He thought that it most materially affected the interests of the country; some of the other bills were local and temporary; this was general and permanent; he, therefore, felt himself bound to raise his voice against a bill which made so important an alteration in the laws of England. The resolution was then agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Thursday, December 2.

TRAINING PREVENTION BILL.] Lord Sidmouth moved the order of the day for the second reading of the bill for prohibiting training. Their lordships, he said, had made an order, that two of the bills which had been read a first time on Monday, should be read a second time this day; he might, therefore, now allude to both. The provisions of one of the bills were similar to those of the Temporary act which was passed some years ago, when the midland districts were in a disturbed state; and if their lordships compared the present bill with the act of the 52nd of the king, they would find that its provisions were much less rigorous. The papers which had been laid before their lordships contained instances of training and of the procuring of arms, more than sufficient to prove the necessity of the measures recommended to their adoption. But the evidence on this subject, irresistible as it already was, had been greatly strengthened since those papers were placed on the table. Within these last few days information had been received that military training was still going on, and that the practice of procuring arms, for purposes the illegal nature of which could not be questioned, was continued. If, then, there was evidence sufficient to warrant their lordships in countenancing this bill, the grounds which would recommend it to their adoption had, instead of being weakened, become much stronger. He should at pre(2 P)

sent say nothing more, except to move, that the bill which stood first in order be now read a second time.

Lord Erskine contended, that the papers before the House did not afford sufficient ground for the measures proposed, and in particular, that the allegation in the preamble of the bill respecting training was not made out. If their lordships found the enactments of the bill unexceptionable, still they ought not to adopt the preamble as a ground for such legislation. His lordship then argued, that the present measures were in themselves far more objectionable than the act to which the noble secretary of state had referred. He believed they would not have the effect which was expected from them. Transportation he considered much too severe a punishment for the offence of drilling. In the course of his long experience in the courts below, he had always found that severity of enactment defeated its purpose. He was therefore of opinion that ministers would be more likely to succeed in their object by making the penalty less. With regard to the bill for the seisure of arms, though it was only temporary the powers which it gave were so extraordinary, that their lordships would surely pause before they sanctioned it. After the assertion in the preamble, the bill proceeded thus:

Be it therefore enacted, that it shall be lawful for any justice of the peace, upon the information upon oath of one or more credible witnesses, that he or they believe that any pike,pike-head,or spear, is in the possession of any person or persons, or in any house or place," &c. The clause then went on to say, "or any dirk, dagger, pistol, or other weapon," and authorized the issuing of warrants to seize arms, and search any house by night or by day. From the terms in which this clause was framed, he must contend that the most loyal person in the country, within the operation of the bill, would be liable to have his house searched, and if any arms were found, might be made liable to all the penalties of this severe law. The people were entitled by the con. stitution to have arms for their defence; and if a measure of this kind were rendered necessary by local circumstances, it was fit their lordships should look carefully to its provisions.

Lord Lilford, though aware that the noble and learned lord who had just sat down ought to be better qualified than

himself for the discussion of evidence, could not look at the papers in his hand without being satisfied that there was ground, not only for the bills which had been introduced, but for more coercive measures. He referred their lordships to the papers on the table, where they would find a letter from Mr. Marsh, a magistrate at Westleigh, followed by the substance of certain depositions relative to the making of arms. Having communicated with Mr. Marsh, he had had access to the informations relative to the procuring of arms, and he could assure their lordships that he had sufficient knowledge of the parties to state that they were persons who deserved to be credited on oath. He thought it right to say this much, though the noble and learned lord had not, as on the former night, founded any argument on the anonymous nature of the correspondence. Some alterations might be necessary in the provisions of the bills, but if the noble lords on the other side had the opportunities which had occurred to him, of ascertaining the credibility of the evidence, he had no doubt that they would come to the same conclusion as himself.

Lord Erskine gave full weight to the observations which had fallen from the noble lord, but still could not rely on the truth of the evidence generally. He had been taught by experience to place no implicit faith in such informations. Their lordships might recollect, that a great mass of similar informations had in 1794, been referred to committees of both Houses of parliament; and that, upon the reports made by those committees, indictments for high-treason were found against certain individuals. When, however, the persons accused were tried they were acquitted. There was evidence enough to satisfy parliament, but not evidence enough to satisfy a jury of the country. Recollecting these things, he could not place confidence in such evidence as appeared in the papers on the table. The noble lord surely would not say, that anonymous informa. tion was to be relied upon by the House with as much assurance as the evidence of persons whose names were made public, and who might be called before them. When testimony was given, he liked to see the witness's face; and if an opportunity for that was afforded, it might be ascertained whether the evidence came from a spy or not. He must say that the mea

sures were altogether inconsistent with the principles of free government. When he looked at all the bills on the table, and thought how little England would be like England, when once they were passed, he could not help being filled with indignation and disgust at such a melancholy prospect. How fortunate would it be for the country if another course were adopted. Conciliatory measures would do more to restore confidence and tranquillity, than all the rigorous enactments that could be adopted.

The Lord Chancellor, in consequence of what had fallen from his noble and learned friend, thought it necessary to state, that when he found it his duty, in 1794, to prefer charges of high treason against certain individuals, he did not proceed on the credit of any report of either House of parliament, but upon the credit which he gave to information on oath. His noble and learned friend thought that England would be unlike England when these bills were passed; but he would ask their lordships what they supposed England would be like if they did not pass? It was only by passing these bills that they could preserve the country from destruction. He always paid the highest respect to the opinion of his noble and learned friend, but it appeared that, on the present occasion, he had misunderstoood the clause in the act relative to the seizure of arms. It was not the mere possession of any dirk, dagger, pistol, or other weapon, that gave the power of searching a house, but the possession of some such weapon "for any purpose dangerous to the public peace." The overlooking of these words made an important difference in the view of the clause. A man might be possessed of a dagger, not only without any improper, but for a laudable purpose. He recollected being in the House of Commons when a great man, now no more (Mr. Burke), but whose memory was stamped with immortality, threw down a dagger on the floor in the course of his speech. That dagger was still preserved, but the person in whose possession it was, certainly did not hold it "for any purpose dangerous to the public peace," but in order that it might be transmitted to posterity as a memorial of that great man who had been instrumental in bringing about the adoption of the course of policy which had saved the country, and rendered England what England now was. With regard to the constitutional question of

the right of the people to possess arms for their own defence, which had been alluded to, the noble and learned lord observed that, in looking at the bill of rights, the principle was not laid down in so broad a manner as it was frequently represented, and that it was accompanied with the strong qualification, that subjects might have arms suitable to their conditions. There was, therefore, little force in the objection urged on this ground. But if their lordships had any doubt of the propriety of passing these bills, it would be removed on giving a fair consideration to the evidence contained in the papers on the table. If the persons to whom that evidence referred, were arming and training with the intention attributed to them, then were they guilty of nothing less than high treason, If their object was to give to meetings, by the collection of great numbers, the quality of physical force, for the purpose of procuring, by the display of that physical force, any alteration in the government, in church or state-if this were done by any individuals, either in this city or any other part of the country, he must declare that such a proceeding was an overt act of treason. With respect to the bill before the House, it never could be supposed that it was wished to render it one of unnecessary rigour. It would be for their lordships, when it went into the committee, to consider all the details, and to render it as lenient as possible.

Lord Redesdale regarded the reports of the secret committees of 1794 as standing on unquestionable authority. There was not a single fact in them, which, when brought before a jury, wasdisputedordiscredited. The attempt to lessen their authority was, therefore, perfectly fruitless. The charges of erroneous statements which had been made against these and subsequent reports were all unfounded. That which had been advanced against the report of one of their lordships committees consisted in an evasion. It referred to a word which had been inserted in the report without a qualification. The word "correspondence" should have been correspondence by messengers."

66

Lord Holland, when he saw so many tremendous bills on the table affecting the liberty of the subject, did not think it necessary to dwell much upon the transactions of 1794. He was not now disposed to consider in what manner the noble and learned lord on the woolsack had