other bills tending to abridge the rights of the people, he thought it a very singular coincidence, that this one should be brought forward at the same time. He conceived the origin of the delays granted in cases of misdemeanor to be the wish to preserve an analogy with the law of treason, which had rendered the law of this country celebrated through the whole civilized world. The protection of human life which that statute afforded was the glory of England. In cases of misdemeanor, as well as of treason, how hard would it be to send an individual to trial unprepared, amidst the effervescence of opinion? The delay made the charge undergo a salutary quarantine. Their lordships might recollect the case of a man who some years ago had attempted the life of the soverign. An application was made to the court, to appoint counsel for this man, and he (lord Erskine), then at the bar, was applied to. He asked lord Kenyon if he ought to accept the charge, and that learned judge gave his opinion in the affirmative. When they were proposing to take from defendants advantages which they possessed, their lordships would do well to consider the indulgence which the law allowed in this and other cases of treason. The defendant was allowed a list of the names of the jurors, with their description, and the places of residence. There was given to him a similar list of the witnesses, that he might know who were to appear against him. Finally, he was allowed his right of challenge. All these rights were enjoyed in the case to which he alluded. The defence of the man was insanity, but his trial and the extraordinary circumstance which gave rise to it, attracted the eyes of all Europe, and gave still more celebrity to the wisdom and humanity of British law. This feature of humanity to the accused was, however, now about to be defaced; but, upon what ground? Had not former times experienced as great agitations as were felt at present? Had not the influence of the passions been as strong, the extent of discontents as great, formerly as now? It was not proposed to diminish the power of the attor ney general. Let, then, the accused retain the few advantages still left in his pos session. The delays were allowed by the ancient law of the land, and were consistent with fairness and justice. But it was said the court had the power of allow ing further time to plead, on sufficient cause being shown. From what he knew of the practice of the courts, he could look to little advantage to the defendant from this clause. When the delay to which the defendant was entitled by law was exhausted, it was not probable that the court would grant a further postponement, unless some strong case could be made out, such as the absence of an important witness; and this was what the court could now do without this bill. His great objection to the measure was, that while it wrested from the subject an important and valuable privilege, it left the attorney-general in full possession of all those grinding powers which were the subject of general complaint, and which ought long since to have been taken from him. Their lordships, in looking at the diseases of the country, differed in opinion as to the remedy, in the same manner as persons differed in treating a sick man. Some would blister and bleed him; others wished to apply only emollients and me. dicines of the mildest operation. Both parties were equally the friends of the patient, but his safety depended on the choice which might be made. In his opinion, in the present situation of the country, the mild treatment was the best. As the law now stood, if the attorney-general did not choose to bring on a trial, the defendant had no means of compelling him; but in all cases where the king was not prosecutor, this indefinite delay could not take place. Was not this dif ference a fit subject for the consideration of their lordships, when they were passing such a bill as the present? It was said, that to alter the law with respect to the power of the attorney-general, would be innovation. But then, why begin innovation? And why, when it is begun, let it be all on one side? If you wish to make changes, let them be equal to both parties. Looking at this bill, coupled with the others on their lordships table, he felt himself bound to give it his decided resistance. The Earl of Liverpool, in rising to support the motion of his noble and learned friend, did not mean to go into those technical consideration which, on such a subject, must be necessarily referred to. He agreed in some respects with the noble and learned lord who had last addressed the house. Although not competent to enter upon a discussion of the legal part of this question, he felt disposed to make some general observations on its main principle, and the effect which it was in- | tended to produce. That principle seemed to him clear and intelligible. He was convinced that, if their lordships did not pass this measure, they had better at once declare that every kind of blasphemy and sedition was to be tolerated in future. It might be fairly concluded, that to justify any innovation upon the ancient law of this country, some strong case of necessity ought to be made out. He was also willing to admit that, supposing the law to be erroneous in theory, yet if no practical inconvenience ensued from it, it might be unwise to alter it upon speculative views alone. But, if he was not grievously mistaken, the ancient law was favourable to the principle of this measure. It seemed to him, that no analogy could be discovered in a state of law, which permitted little or no delay, in cases of treason, murder, or felony, but allowed it in misdemeanors and bailable offences. Persons charged with the higher crimes were in most instances put immediately on their trial, whilst, in those of a lesser description, a delay might be claimed, extending sometimes to the period of a year. Such delay, if granted at all, appeared to him likely to prove less injurious in cases of superior atrocity, because in them the person of the offender was secured. But, in cases of libel, the offence might be repeated (as their lordships must well know had been frequently done) day after day, and hour after hour, before the party accused could be brought to trial. All this mischief would be prevented by a more seasonable prosecution. An instant trial might afford an adequate correction to the evil. By the present measure it was also provided, that whenever any special reason could be assigned, the courts of law should have authority to interfere, and to allow the party further time. He agreed that they ought not now to consider themselves as legislating de novo. He should be the last man to propose or recommend any additional restrictions on the liberty of the press; for he regarded it as one of the best securities of public freedom. But that it stood in need of some regulation, would, he thought, be denied by no man who had attended to that mass of licentiousness, of wickedness, indecency, and profaneness, by which it had recently been contaminated. When doctrines contrary to every principle of religion and morals were openly promulgated, the law ought to be made effectual for its own purposes. Could the imperious necessity of applying some remedy be controverted? Could the progress of this formidable evil be arrested without some proceeding of this nature? The House had been engaged in a great deal of discussion with respect to public meetings, and the dangers arising from them: he believed, however, that no remedy, even in relation to those dangers, would be so effectual as the present measure. Still he was ready to admit, that the choice of a remedy might be a matter of difficult consideration; but the existence of the evil, and the importance of some remedy, was obvious and indisputable. It was that about which all men could at once see and judge equally well. He asked for the support of no man to this proceeding, who did not acknowledge the present evil. If that were acknowledged, could it be maintained that it was fitting that the law should continue unaltered? It was with reference to that evil, that his noble and learned friend had introduced this bill. The question was, whether they ought, in the case of those offences to which he had alluded, to extend to parties accused the favour of traversing or imparling for entire months. He agreed that the measure was an inno vation, and that the House was bound to require evidence of a strong necessity. Was there not, then, sufficient evidence of this description in the actual circumstances of the country, and in all those practices which notoriously prevailed? His majesty's government had been asked why more prosecutions had not been instituted. He could only say, that the answer to that question was of itself a strong argument in defence of this pro ceeding. No effort had been left untried during the last twelve months to bring persons charged with blasphemous and seditious libels to justice. It had, notwithstanding, been found impossible in the present state of the law to obtain more than one conviction. If, then, there did exist a lamentably great and pressing evil, he trusted the House would not be indisposed to adopt some measure of this kind. The noble and learned lord who preceded him, had objected to it on the ground that it took away an advantage from the subject, whilst it left untouched the power of the attorney-general to file ex officio informations. But he (lord Liverpool) was desirous that this latter question should be tried on the same principle. Did any positive inconvenience arise from the exercise of this power? The attorney-general was invested with this discretion a greater discretion, he admitted, than belonged to any other individual; but it was exercised under a responsibility to both Houses of Parliament. If any strong case of abuse in the administration of this power could be brought forward, he, for one, should be willing to consider the propriety of withdrawing it; but he could see no reason for going into such a discussion, when, for the last thirty years, through the whole duration of his political life, from the time at least when his noble and learned friend on the woolsack was appointed to the office of attorney-general down to the present, the only blame or public complaint had been, that the prosecutions were not more numerous. With this experience then, that there was no ground of accusation or suspicion that this power had been improperly directed against the subject, he could not but feel adverse to the introduction of any provision respect ing it into the measure under consideration. There was no charge of abuse, but the error, if there had been an error, was entirely on the contrary side. He could not assent, therefore, at this moment, to any proposition for altering the law in that respect, and trusted that he had shown sufficient cause for the measure immediately before them. Lord Holland declared that he felt some very decided objections to this proceeding. He did not consider himself competent, any more than the noble earl, to look at it in a technical point of view, but should endeavour to state the general nature of his reasons for opposing it. The noble earl had argued this question in a way not very respectful to his noble and learned friend. A great part of his speech was filled with reflexions on that ancient law by which the subjects of this country had hitherto been governed. The noble and learned lord on the woolsack had not uttered a single word on the necessity or intended operation of this measure. He had, therefore, as it appeared to him, received a severe rebuke from the noble earl who had last addressed the House. The wisdom of our ancestors, about which they had often heard so much rant, was at length represented as inadequate. Our boasted constitution was now, at least in some of its parts, described as absurd in theory, and in effectual in practice. Some of its most important regulations were to be renounced. It had, however, been truly stated by his noble and learned friend, that these laws had been fully revised and re-considered, at the time of our glorious Revolution. They had then been approved by some of the wisest and most excellent men that ever sat in parliament. Among them was lord Somers, who, taking for his guide the opinions of sir Matthew Hale, went still farther, and condemned proceedings by information. He thought proceedings by indictment a safer and more constitutional course. The noble earl had rebuked his noble friend, and traduced the constitution; but he had not shown that blasphemy and sedition might not be punished by the law as it now existed. It had been urged, that the offence of the libel had frequently been repeated before trial, but every one of these additional acts of publication might be already prosecuted. Such acts were, moreover, always referred to in aggravation of punishment. Another difference between the noble earl and the noble and learned lord on the woolsack seemed to arise from a fact mentioned by the latter, and which was that this measure had been long in his contemplation. The noble earl on the other hand had treated it as a parcel of the present budget-as called forth by an immediate necessity, and not as a subject of calm dispassionate judgment. If the House, therefore, could have the benefit of another speech from the noble and learned lord, he had no doubt that the statement of the noble earl would be repelled. Could it be gravely maintained that we had hitherto lived under a state of law that was not adequate to the punishment of vice? They had been told that the attorney-general was a responsible officer; so he apprehended were all persons in public situations. The noble earl had said, that if any system of abuse could be shown to exist in the exercise of that officer's discretion, he would willingly go into a consideration of his powers, but that no such abuse had even been alleged. Upon this point, however, he must beg to refer them to a bill which he had wished to introduce some few years ago, and the object of which would have been to take away all exofficio informations. It was not satisfactory to him to be reminded, that the attorney-general was liable to an impeach+ it was only by mutual consent and arrangement. Now, he should have liked to have heard from the noble and learned lord, in what cases these delays occurred most frequently. He had look of the noble and learned lord on that point; and, indeed, he must say, notwithstanding the great legal knowledge of the noble and learned lord, that a more clumsy, a more disjointed, or a more unintelligible bill, never was drawn up. What would the late earl Stanhope have said of it? Nothing, certainly, would have given him (lord Holland) greater delight than to have heard the eloquence of that noble earl on such a bill as this. Assuming a falsehood for its foundation, it went on to assert that which was not the case, even supposing the first assumption true. After having had the advantage of being assisted in framing it by all the learned gentlemen in the employment of the Crown, the noble and learned lord had said on the second reading, that the preamble must be altered. If the noble and learned lord, with all the legal assistance of which he had had the benefit, had been unable to make the bill intelligible, how were its provisions to be understood by those whom it was to affect? This reminded him of an anecdote which he had read of a great man, who had been a member of that House. He alluded to the earl of Shaftesbury, the author of the "Characteristics," and who was one of the purest and ablest writers that this country ever produced. He seldom mixed in the affairs of the world; but when the bill for allowing counsel to ment. He had stated upon the occasion before alluded to, what he could have proved, that there had been an increase of twenty to one criminal informations in proportion to the other modes of proceeding. He could also have establish-ed into the bill in vain for the opinion ed something further, namely; that out of twenty filed, only one or two had been prosecuted. The House had frequently heard of the dangers to be apprehended in touching the sacred ark of the constitution. It was a common argument, that it was better to resist inquiry than to innovate upon any ancient law. Here, however, it was proposed to repeal a branch of the law favourable to the subject, and which appeared to him to have been enacted in the same spirit as many other of our free institutions, and which, in his conscience, he believed had often saved this country from being deluged with blood. It appeared to him to involve the same principles as the law of treason, and to have been passed on account of that inequality which was supposed would always exist where the subject was prosecuted by the Crown.-The noble and learned ford had confined his observations to a technical view of this question, and he must confess he had heard with astonishment, that, framed as the measure was, it had long been under his consideration. The very title appeared to him to be loose and inapplicable. The noble and learned lord's legal knowledge had not often been equalled, and certainly, never surpassed; yet he had utterly failed in making the House understand what the extent and nature of the delay was for which this proceeding was to afford a remedy. How were misde-persons accused of high-treason was inmeanors of this kind usually prosecuted? troduced, he came forward in the House He believed in the court of King's-Bench, of Commons (for he was then lord" by information or by indictment at ses Ashley), and for the first time in his life sions of Oyer and Terminer. There were attempted to address the House in support two species of information; the one of the measure. Eloquent however, as filed by the attorney-general upon his his writings were he was so overpowered own mere authority; and the other grant- by the emotions which the numerous ased by the court of King's-Bench, upon sembly around him excited that he lost cause shown. By which of these modes the train of his argument, and was unof proceeding was the greatest delay in able to proceed. Sir," said he, if I"? curred. Upon criminal information who rise only to give my opinion on the filed, there was a right of imparlance bill now depending, am so confounded granted to the ensuing term. This was that I am unable to express the least of granted as an indulgence upon applica what I proposed to say, what must the tion, and was matter of usage on the first condition of that man be, who, without process. This was not the case, heap-any assistance, is pleading for his life, and prehended, upon an indictment; for under apprehensions of being deprived although the party might there traverse, of it?" The noble and learned lord, inf (VOL. XLI.) (2 Y) their lordships' went on to increase that distrust by passing measures such as the present, they would, by shaking their confidence in parliament (which he thought the greatest safety of the constitution), inevitably increase the evil He could not hope that his opposition would prevent the bill from passing, even in its present state; but if it were so altered as to legislate on both sides, by preventing the delays which occurred in prosecutions by ex-officio informations, as well as in those by indictment, he should perhaps give it his feeble support on the third reading. Lord Lilford began by making some remarks respecting the apprehensions which lord Holland seemed to entertain of giving too great an influence to the Crown, and those which the earl of Liverpool held with respect to the absolute predominance of the people. For his own part, he was equally jealous of the absolute authority of both: "Justum et tenacem propositi virum Non civium ardor prava jubentium, Nou vultus instantis tyranni, Mente quatit solida." one of his speeches on this momentous occasion, after stating all the evils that arose from the present practice, had expressed his regret that the assizes were not more frequent. There the noble and learned lord argued well; as he always did when he was willing to do so; and he (lord Holland) was of the same opinion on that subject. But it was surely lamentable, that after two years preparation, they should have crammed down their throats a morsel like this, which, with the assistance of so many eminent lawyers, the noble and learned lord could not render palatable.-The noble lord then proceeded to quote several parts of the preamble, and contended, that it was shown in the bill that the delays complained of arose from defendants being allowed time to plead after indictment. After what he had shown of the nature of this bill, it was manifest that its title was grossly deceiving, it professed to be a bill to prevent delays in prosecutions for misdemeanors, but it did not say one word of the greatest delays-those which occurred in proceedings by ex-officio informations. By the wise provision of those great men who lived at the time of the Revolution in 1688, and to whose The noble and learned lord, when he first authority their lordships often referred, proposed this bill to the House, had told improper delay could not occur by allow them that it was not suggested by the ing the accused time to plead, because, exigencies of the present time; and he in prosecutions by indictment, the de- was much pleased to hear that declaration. fendants were obliged to enter into recog- There was no doubt that the subjects of nizances, which they must forfeit, if the realm had reason to complain of legisthey did not appear to plead. But in lative enactments, made to meet temporary proceedings by ex-officio informations, exigencies. When he looked over the Stathe attorney-general had the power of tute book, he found the laws enacted for punishing a person accused, though not temporary purposes extremely numerous. convicted of a libel, by keeping proseIn his view of the case, experience showed cution hanging over his head for life. He not only what was true, but also what was did not say that this had been done by the expedient. It was or it was not true, that present attorney-general, or his predeces- by the present practice a long interval sors; but this he would say, that there elapsed between indictment and trial, were at present forty informations depend- during which many innocent persons were ing, some of which had been hanging compelled to stand in the situation of criover the parties accused for one, two, minals; whilst others, who were not inthree, four, five, and some for ten deed criminals but certainly culprits, stood years. And this must surely be admitted in the situation of innocent persons. It to be a shocking state of the law. He had been said, that the reason of the noble would not at present enter into the views and learned lord for introducing the bill which he entertained respecting the dan- was, to expedite trials for seditious and ger said to exist in the country-a subject blasphemous libels. Now, the only queson which he differed, perhaps, from many tion was, whether this was a sufficient noble lords who had stated their opinions reason for disturbing the law of the counto the House. Whatever might be the try; and as he believed that the delay extent of the danger, he thought it was which the law at present permitted retardowing, in a great measure, to the dis-ed the course of justice, on that view he trust of the people in parliament. If should support the bill. |