prevent any confusion arising from popular meetings, or to punish any disturbers of the public peace; and a too ready acquiescence in the suggestions of ministers for imposing new restraints upon the rights and usages of the people (even if the provisions of the bill were in themselves neither harsh nor unreasonable), appears to us more calculated to add weight to calumny, and to exasperate discontent into hostility, than to defeat the designs of turbulent men, or to reclaim the alienated affections of a mistaken multitude. 2dly, Because the powers intrusted by this bill to magistrates are liable to great abuse, and those who disobey them exposed to dreadful and disproportionate punishment. On the surmise that a stranger is present in a crowd, or on the application of a vague definition to the words of a notice, or to the language of an orator, a justice of the peace may proclaim a meeting to be unlawful, and an Englishman may become a felon for continuing, even through inadvertence, half an hour on a spot where no breach of the peace has been committed. 3rdly, Because the numerous assemblies, alleged in the preamble to be the occasion and justification of the bill, have been confined to particular districts, but the restrictions and penalties thereof are generally extended to the whole kingdom, and even to Ireland, where no such practices have ever prevailed. 4thly, Because the bill, combined with the restrictions of the press, which have already passed, or have been announced in this House, is obviously intended to fetter all free discussion, and to repress, if not stifle, the expression of public opinion. Large meetings, in periods of political ferment, furnish the means of ascertaining the designs, and measuring the strength of the mal-contents: they tend to disunite and discredit the rash and mischievous agitators of a mistaken multitude; and they not unfrequently serve as a vent, comparatively innoxious, of that ill-humour and discontent, which, if suppressed, might seek refuge in secret cabals and conspiracies, dangerous to the safety of individuals in authority, and subversive of the peace and happiness of society. (Signed) VASSALL HOLLAND, DONOUGHMORE, ERSKINE. House of Commons, Dec. 14. Lord John Russell rose to bring forward a motion of which he had given notice respecting parliamentary reform. His lordship began with stating the anxiety under which he presented a measure for which the present period might appear to some peculiarly ill-adapted. He was not unaware that there were many persons in the House and in the country opposed to all theoretical advantages to be derived from a change in the constitution of parliament. These were willing that the constitution, like the temples of the gods at Róme, should remain with all its dust and cobwebs about about it, and thought it profane in any hand to remove the core ruptions by which it was defaced. Their opponents, on the other hand, the champions of radical reform, seemed desirous to raise their name by applying a firebrand to a sanctuary which had stood for ages. But without entering on a discussion of abstract principles, he wished to draw the attention of the House to the unrepresented towns, many of which had risen into places of great commercial wealth and importance, while others had sunk into decay and become unfit to enjoy the privilege of sending representatives. On reference to the history of parliament, it would be found that the principle of change had been often acknowledged, and the suffrage withdrawn and conferred on various occasions. Of this the noble lord proceeded to adduce several examples; and after making various remarks on the practical evils resulting from the corruption of small boroughs, most of which were represented by gentlemen who sought a seat in the House from private and personal views, and who uniformly voted with government, he passed on to the evils of non-representation to the populous towns to which he had alluded, and the benefits to be anticipated from extending to them this privilege; -a privilege which could only be extended to them on this principle of change, since neither the principles of the revolution nor the act of union would permit the sovereign to issue his writ for adding to the number of members. After expressing at large both his veneration for the constitu tion, and his ideas on the reforms which it required and could safely receive, his lordship, amid the cheers of both sides of the House, proposed several resolutions, which went to establish the principle of change which he had laid down, and some rules respecting the voters of disfranchised places, on whom corruption should not have been proved. The last resolution was for the disfranchisement of the borough of Grampound, the corruption of which had already been proved to the House. On the suggestion of Lord Castlereagh, who acknowledged the moderation with which the proposal of the noble lord had been brought forward, and manifested a desire to concur in its objects to a certain degree, and to conciliate whatever differences of opinion might still subsist between himself and the noble mover, lord John Russell withdrew his present motion. A few days afterwards, he brought in a bill simply for the disfranchisement of Grampound and the transfer of its representation to some populous town; which was read a first time, and the second reading was deferred by his lordship till after the holidays. House of Commons, Dec. 20. Lord Castlereagh moved for going into a committee on the newspaper stamp bill. Mr. Macdonnel said, that the House was now called upon to sanction a further and fundamental alteration in the law of England, by passing a measure which would affect the liberty of the country in its most tender part, part, the public press, which de served to be guarded with no less jealousy than the sacred right of meeting to petition. This demand was founded, like the other restrictive measures, on the alleged incompetency of the existing laws, though it appeared that no effort had been made to carry those laws into execution. The two bills against the press, which he should consider in connection with each other, would go further, he was convinced, than any thing which had yet been attempted in abridging the liberty of the country. It appeared, that at the close of 25 years, the people of this country, having, after a succession of miscarriages and disasters which they bore with unparalleled fortitude, enabled the duke of Wellington by their bravery to bring the contest to a glorious conclusion, were not considered worthy to enjoy the freedom of their ancestors. After the "intensity of light which had broken in upon them during that period, they were rendered incapable of bearing their liberty." Good God! where was their liberty? The people would loath those very victories which led to such a result, and all the glory of which could not compensate the loss of a single atom of their liberty. On the first provision of the bill about to be committed, that which imposed a stamp duty he should say little, because it seemed to him the least efficacious and important part of it, and because, though he had been a good deal staggered by the petitions read that night, he still thought that something of the kind might be necessary. The provision in this bill to which he chiefly objected, was that which prevented the publication of any vote under a certain size without security previously given by the printer. He would maintain that this provision was a gross violation of the constitution; for hitherto no security had ever been demanded in this country, unless from a person who, by some overt act, had given reason to believe either that he had transgressed, or that he was about to transgress, the law. But to exact security from a man who had neither violated the law, nor given any reason to believe that he ever would violate it, was to pronounce him a priori unworthy of exercising his rights; it was an anomaly in the administration of justice. He held it to be a primary principle of the English constitution, that an Englishman might publish whatever he pleased on his own responsibility; but now, for the first time, it was required of him to find others to share in this responsibility. While one spark of the spirit of liberty remained in the country, such a measure could not be tolerated. Should this measure be carried into effect, he would ask any gentleman in that House, if he would be willing to become security for his nearest and dearest friend, when the consequence might perhaps be his irretrievable ruin? Great as might be the inconvenience and evil of this provision to printers and publishers, the greatest hardship would fall on authors; and among those who would be affected by it, he would take leave to say, were some of the most eminent writers of the age-men who, by their labours, had ren dered dered important services to the constitution and the country. But, independently of the hardship to individuals, the measure would be attended with important consequences to the community; for it was not to be supposed that any man would, after this, record the transactions of the day, unless he could afford to lock up 1,2004;-600l. for his printer, and 600/. for his publisher. After a number of remarks more peculiarly applicable to the blasphemous and seditious libel bill than to the one immediately under consideration, the hon. gentleman concluded by calling on the House to cling with gratitude to the respectable part of the press, and to cherish it with a scrupulous and religious care. Mr. Sergeant Onslow thought that the hon. member had taken a most erroneous view both of the principle and object of the bill. He denied that authors would be in any degree affected by it; it applied to printers and publishers alone, and of these, principally to obscure publishers;-to persons who urged on by the desire of gain had no fear of imprisonment, and would publish any libel, however infamous. He was as warm a friend to the liberty of the press as any person, but he confessed he did not think these bills went in the slightest degree to infringe those liberties. These bills had been compared to a censorship; but he thought there was a wide difference between them and the measures described by Locke, and by Algernon Sydney. There was a wide differbetween an imprimatur which went to prevent publica ence tion, and a decent check upon those which might be published. His firm opinion was, that the evils which existed were attributable to the circulation of the most flagitious libels during the last 26 or 27 years, by which he would not say that the great majority of the people had been in fected [hear!] but by which an almost incalculable mischief had been accomplished. He would say, that the great majority of the people were still sound; but at the same time, if effectual means were not taken to check the continuation of those abuses, it was impossible to anticipate the ill consequences which might result from them. After Mr. R. S. Graham and Mr. Marryat had expressed themselves in strong terms against the measure, Mr. Denman said, he could not suffer this bill, which formed a branch of that system of coercion which had been adopted by his majesty's ministers, to pass, with out calling upon those who, having done something towards the promotion of the system to which he alluded, he hoped they would not now do that which would have a tendency to change the whole system of the law of the press of England. If any thing could induce those gentlemen who held the balance, as it were, between the two sides of the House, to pause before they acceded to any further restrictions upon the rights of the people, it would be the obdurate perseverance with which it was attempted to place the whole laws of the country at the mercy of the ministers of the crown. If they they compared the doctrines of these gentlemen with all their other modes of proceeding, they would see that the confidence of the public had been lost; and that while they were talking of the shadow, they had suffered the substance to be destroyed by a body calling itself the House of Commons, without possessing any one principle in common with the great mass of the people of this country. It appeared to him, that the two bills before the House, although different in their object, were yet the same in spirit. The present subject for their consideration was, the stamp duty bill. The principle of this bill, he contended, was altogether new, and had the direct ten dency of an imprimatur. He entreated gentlemen not to allow themselves to be persuaded that this enactment would do but little. He saw, throughout the whole course of the measure, while it would be ineffectual in its operation, it would be mischievous and oppressive to individuals. He alluded particularly to those shackles which it would impose upon respectable booksellers, by calling upon them to enter into recognizances of 300%. in London, and 2001. in the country, before they could commence business. This principle, if once recognized by parliament, would only be the prelude to harsher and more severe measures. Another clause, to which he thought there was also infinite objection, and from which there was every reason to apprehend danger from its abuse, was that which gave to a single justice of the peace the power of determining offences which were VOL. LXI. proscribed by that act. They all knew that the duties of a justice of peace were already sufficiently arduous and difficult; but if, in addition to these, they were called upon to search for arms by night, upon informations which might be laid before them, to attend public meetings with an armed levy by day, and not alone to impose fines which might be incurred under the Stamp act, but also to search for and secure copies of those works which might be characterized as libels, he would only ask, whether, for the performance of these multifarious duties, they would not require a salary? What would then become of the panegyrics upon unpaid magistrates? Was there any man, or order of men, who would give up their time and submit to the shackles which these duties would impose? It was true that they might receive additional power; but would this compensate for the odium which they would incur in carrying these acts into effect? But if it were alone because these bills extended the power of magistrates, he thought they ought not to pass. In fact, by these bills such persons would have a power of suppressing public liberty, almost amounting to the destruction of the right of petition, in 17 counties in this kingdom.-Upon the clause which required securities, his hon. friend had referred to the times of Charles 2nd, and of the StarChamber, as a period when such securities had been taken; but he knew very well, that in the 5th of William 3rd that practice had fallen to rise no more; and at no period since the Revolution had [M] it |