ever heard of them; having seen contrary to the spirit of our laws three prosecutions carried on by the attorney-general for the same offence; although Mr. Hone, after the acquittal on the first of them, had given a promise-a promise which he had since kept-that he would not republish the parodies, he (the marquis of Tavistock) thought it proper to mark his sense of the conduct of those proceedings, and he had no hesitation to add his admiration of the abilities of Mr. Hone in conducting his defence against all the power and talents which had been arrayed against him. As to the attempt to implicate him (the marquis of Tavistock) and those who had pursued the same course, in the charge of approving and extending the progress of blasphemy, it was too absurd to be maintained for a moment; although he confessed he felt some surprise at the course of argument which had been pursued by the hon. | and learned gentleman as he had some recollection of the time when the hon. and learned gentleman was accustomed to treat similar topics in a very different tone. However objectionable the mode of political discussion by parody on the sacred writings unquestionably was, Mr. Hone could plead abundant precedents for it. He would appeal to a right hon. gentleman opposite, whether he had not in his former, perhaps he might call them his less prudent days, indulged in such a mode of expressing his feelings; and whether at the time he did so, he was not, nevertheless, capable of entertaining a just abhorrence of blasphemy and sedi tion. The Solicitor General observed, that he was so pointedly called upon by the speech of the noble lord and by that of the hon. member for Shrewsbury last night that he did not think he should discharge his duty to himself if he did not rise to offer an explanation of the language imputed to him. Three weeks had elapsed since he had made use of the expressions alluded to. They had occurred at the commencement of the debate on the present bills, and yet, strange to say, though the hon. member for Shrewsbury was present at the time (whether the noble lord was or was not he could not say), he had not ventured to bring forward the charge when what he (the solicitor general) had said was fresh in the recollection of the House, but had postponed doing so until an interval of three weeks had elapsed. He would dare any hon. member in the House, who was listening to him at the time to say, that there was the slightest ground for the charge. He never had said that the conduct pf the gentlemen opposite, in Mr. Hone's case had given rise to all the sedition and blasphemy which had since flowed in upon the country. He never in his life had given a more guarded opinion than on the occasion in question, and he would defy any one to say that his expressions were not that, without censuring the motives of the persons who entered into a subscription for Mr. Hone, he was confident that such conduct had had the effect of holding out a hope of impunity to blasphemous and seditious libellers. That was his sentiment on that occasion, and he now deliberately repeated the same. He would ask the noble lord on what grounds did he bring charges against him (the Solicitor-general) for his former conduct? He would ask the hon. member for Shrewsbury on what ground did he charge him with inconsistency? He had never before the time of his entrance into that House belonged to any political society, or was in any way connected with politics, and even if he had intended to connect himself with any party, he confessed that during his short parliamentary experience he had seen nothing in the views, the policy or the conduct of the gentlemen opposite, to induce him, as a true friend of the constitution to join them. On a former night he stated what he stated now, and what could not be contradicted, that on the three trials of Mr. Hone, a judge, of whose talents and knowledge of English law he had the highest opinion, and who was distinguished for his independence of character, declared the publications to be profane libels; that the present chief justice of the King's-bench, who filled that situation with so much honour, declared that the publication produced on the trial at which he presided was a profane and impious libel; that another person was tried and found guilty for the publication of one of those libels; that another person suffered judgment to go by default for publishing one of those parodies, and that the court in passing sentence described it to be a profane and impious libel. With all these circumstances before his eyes, and relying upon the knowledge of the laws of this country possessed by the respectable individuals beforementioned, was it, he would ask, too much for him to say, that notwithstanding the verdict of the jury, he guilty against persons prosecuted for a similar offence? He had nothing to answer to the arguments on the principle of the bill, because he thought they had been completely answered by his hon. and learned friend. He should now sit down, having supported the opinion which he had given on a former night, and having rebutted the unfounded charges which had been made against him in the course of the debate. Mr. Scarlett allowed that he never had heard that his hon. and learned friend was a member of any political society, or that he was connected with any political body. All that could be said was, per considered the publications profane and impious libels? When the question was afterwards brought before that House by a noble lord, and seconded by an hon. and learned individual now no more, for whose great talents he had always entertained the highest respect, and of whom no person could speak in any terms of approbation to which he would not subscribe, that hon. and learned individual then said that he did not mean to state that the publications themselves were undeserving of censure, but that the conduct of the attorney-general in the conduct of the prosecution was highly improper. In a month afterwards the hon. member for Norwich again brought the ques-haps, that his hon. and learned friend tion before the House, and admitted that the publications were censurable, although he contended that they were not deserving of a criminal prosecution. This therefore went forth to the world, that though the judges of the land had declared these publications to be profane, and though the gentlemen in that House always arrayed in opposition to the ministers of the Crown, had allowed the publications to be censurable, yet they ought not to be visited by a prosecution. He would ask any man what effect could such a declaration have on the people, other than that extreme effect of encouragement to seditious libels? But that was not all. There was in a short time afterwards a meeting held for the avowed purpose of entering into a subscription for the man who was before pronounced by the judges of the land, as the publisher of profane and impious libels; at which meeting a worthy alderman member for the city of London, presided; and at which meeting an hon. baronet member for Westminster, was present; and at that meeting was Mr. Wooler allowed to make an inflammatory attack on the judge who presided at Mr. Hone's trial; whom he described as one who had in the course of the trial acted the part rather of a vindictive prosecutor than of an impartial judge of the land, and yet no dissent to such sentiments was offered at that meeting. On the contrary they were received with great approbation, and a subscription for the relief of Mr. Hone was immediately opened. When speaking of the influence which the conduct of gentlemen of the first rank and patriotism, who subscribed on that occasion, had on the people was it too much to say, that it was impossible under such circumstances to expect a verdict of $ now entertained opinions different from those he had formerly expressed, respecting his present associates; but there was nothing wonderful in this; it was natural that we should like people better the more we became acquainted with them. The very apprehension of being thought inconsistent would excuse some warmth-a warmth which seemed to verify the old proverb, "That proselytes were generally enthusiasts." That it was not intended to discuss this bill was manifest, for the gentlemen on the other side had not advanced any argument in support of it; he had heard no indication of their sentiments, except a scoff or a laugh, which was not an argument. With respect to the particular question, whether or not there had been a due activity in the prosecution of libels, he must say that he did not think the reasons urged by the other side in defence of their declining to prosecute were of sufficient weight. He meant to say nothing unkind of individuals, for whom he felt great respect, and of the purity of whose motives there could be no question, but it was his duty to state his opinion freely. When he spoke of individuals in public stations, he must be understood as speaking of nothing but errors in judgment, of a relaxation in some cases, and too severe activity in others. He would take up the conduct of the law officers of the Crown since the year 1811, and he would say he was one of those who thought that the activity exercised at that period called for animadversion. Every body knew, that in prosecuting for libel, persons might sometimes be convicted who were not in any way chargeable with moral guilt. He had been present on one occasion at the time to which he had just alluded, when twenty people were brought up for judgment, every one of whom was as little involved in any participation of the moral guilt of the offence of which they were convicted, as any hon. member of that House. Among them were several women who lived in distant parts of the country, and whose only connexion with the offence was, that having annuities on newspapers, their names as required by act of parliament, were lodged at the Stamp Office as joint proprietors of those papers. They all received sentence, not indeed a very severe one (they were fined 204. a-piece); but still the prosecution of such persons argued an activity on the part of those who prosecuted them, which excited strong sensations, and not of approbation, in Westminster Hall. The next Attorneygeneral seemed to act on the principle that frequent prosecutions for libel did more harm than good, and he believed that in the course of four years there was but one prosecution, and that for a libel on one of the royal family. Then came, under a subsequent Attorney-general the prosecutions against Wooler. One of them was for a libel not of a very offensive nature, but one or two passages struck him as likely to produce a verdict. When the Attorney-general had opened his case, Mr. Wooler made a defence which exhibited a very extraordinary degree of talent and, feeling all the respect that he did for the Attorney-general, he must say that he thought Mr. Wooler had greatly the advantage over him. The conviction of Mr. Wooler might be attributed rather to the mode of his defence, and the topics touched on by him, than to any arguments used by the Attorney-general. As an example of the mode of defence adopted by Mr. Wooler, he (Mr. Scarlett) would state, that Mr. Wooler, in his defence, said that the Bill of Rights was a bill of wrongs and insults; and avowed himself the follower of Paine's political doctrines. In fact, his own speech did more to overturn his own arguments than the speech of the Attorney-general. In the second case, the libel was a mere piece of pleasantry against some members of the administration, and Mr. Wooler conducted his defence in the same tone of pleasantry, observing that after the former prosecution, which he called a tragedy, this was a farce. The jury acquitted him, and he (Mr. Scarlett) thought they did right. For his own part, and he must be suppos(VOL. XLI.) ed to have some experience on the subject, he believed there could not be a more fair, honourable, and intelligent tribunal in the world than a London jury. Then came the case of Mr. Hone; who was indicted for three libels; one a parody on the Litany, another a parody on the Catechism, and the third a parody on the Athanasian Creed. When Mr. Hone was brought up, the information was read at great length, and every count but the last charged him with an intent to revile the Liturgy. He (Mr. Scarlett) thought at the time that Mr. Hone would be acquitted; and he said so to a learned gentlemen who now filled with the greatest credit to himself the situation of a judge in the court of King's Bench-he meant Mr. Justice Richardson, who was then one of the counsel for the prosecution. His reason for so thinking, and he then stated it, was, that so many distinguished persons, bishops, deans, and ministers of state, in all times and ages, had published parodies, and he did not believe that twelve men could be found in the metropolis, who could, on their oaths, conscientiously find a man guilty of blasphemy, for doing what had so frequently and by such persons been done before him. As he had foretold, Mr. Hone was acquitted. The second prosecution was for a parody on the Catechism; this was something worse; but Mr. Hone had produced in his defence, a parody called "The Freeholder's Catechism," written by Dr. Arbuthnot, in the reign of queen Anne, but which by mistake he had attributed to Mr. Wilkes. It was in fact written by Dr. Arbuthnot, in favour of the government of that day, and was thought to be a very useful composition. Mr. Hone, was again acquitted. As to the third parody, on the Athanasian Creed, he (Mr. Scarlett) had no sooner read the record, than he asserted that he had no doubt of an acquittal. Indeed, a parody did not necessarily infer an intention to revile the thing parodied. How many parodies, for instance, had been published on Pope's Letter of Eloisa to Abelard? It was well known that Mr. Porson was very fond of a parody on that poem; but who would impute to him or to the poem any wish to revile the poetical character of Mr. Pope? He was one of those who thought that these compositions ought not to be applauded. He did not think the present an irreligious age; if not so devout as former ages, it, (4 Z) however, paid the greatest attention to the outward forms and decorums of religion; and perhaps it was for this very reason that parodies, which appeared so innocent to our forefathers, were so shocking and offensive in our eyes. But a jury to whom it was put as Mr. Hone put it, whether they could think he had a design of reviling or degrading the Christian religion, by doing that which bishops and ministers of state had done before him, or whether they thought that his object was purely political, could not in their conscience convict him of the former of fence; and as to the latter, the Attorneygeneral, though certainly not deficient in courage, had not ventured to appeal to the jury for a political verdict. If the acquittals of Wooler and Hone were the grounds on which the opinion was founded, that juries would not convict in those other cases of atrocious libel to which reference had been made, he (Mr. Scarlett) felt assured that this was a grievous mistake. He was convinced that not one of those aggravated libels could have been brought before any jury without a certainty of a verdict of guilty. As to what had been said by his hon. and learned friend on former occasions, of the policy of prosecuting libels, he conceived that much depended on the nature of each particular case. There were many cases, no doubt, where prosecution might do harm by giving publicity to a libel not likely to be otherwise circulated; but where a libel, and one, too, of a malignant nature, had already circulated very considerably, especially where it had been disseminated among schools, as was alleged to be the case at present, there nobody could deny that it would be highly useful to brand the libeller with a verdict of conviction; nobody, at least, could deny that such a person was a fit object against whom an Attorney-general might call in aid the operation of the laws. He would not impute motives to his majesty's ministers; but if it was their object to put down the press by the clamour of the House of Commons, they could not proceed in a way different from their present course. The cry was-" The laws won't do; juries won't convict; give us severer laws:" whereas the fact was, that the aid of the laws had not been invoked in those cases where juries would be sure to convict. He was not one of those who thought the power of filing ex-officio informations ought to be taken away from Attorney generals; on the contrary, he thought it a power which if discreetly exercised, was a great benefit to the country. Nor had any objection been made to that power by his honourable friends; their view was simply this-that as it was a power which if indiscriminately applied, would be in many cases rigorously severe, it ought not to be pressed on ordinary or inadequate occasions; but if the country were really in that alarming state described by the Attorney-general, then why not bring some of the worst cases before a jury? It was a libel on juries to say that they would not convict in such cases. Why did government sleep throughout 1818, when they might have obtained convictions of libels unquestionably blasphemous and seditious? Was it necessary that such publications should be tolerated, to afford a pretext for the introduction of coercive measures and restrictions on the liberty of the subject? He was convinced that nothing more than ordinary attention was necessary to procure conviction according to the present laws, and that ministers were not entitled to demand any additional restrictive laws until the present laws failed to bring delinquents to punishment. Colonel Wood, adverting to the assertion of the hon. and learned gentleman who had just sat down, that no argument had been offered in support of this measure, observed, that no argument had been advanced against it. He would give a reason why he should most conscientiously vote for the bill. It had two objects-one to seize libels, and the other to send out of the country those who persisted in vilifying the civil and religious institutions. With respect to the parodies published by Mr. Hone, the House could not be unaware of their mischievous tendency. The impression against them would however, he believed, be still stronger, if the mode of their distribution were fully made known, for that would naturally increase the alarm which the currency of such publications was calculated to produce in every religious, considerate mind. Where would the House suppose he first saw these parodies? It had pleased God to bless him with a large family and he actually found one of these profane and impious libels in the nursery of his children! He must, however, do justice to the young folks, who said that the jokes were very good; but very shocking. Parliament would neglect a very material duty if it | So early as 1812, it was proposed to the did not take measures to guard the pub- petitioner, by Samuel Fletcher, whom the lic against the pollution of such prophane petitioner considered an agent of coloand impious productions. With that nel Fletcher, to become a spy. This the view, then, he would vote for the first petitioner refused. He was told by Sam. part of this bill, and he would also vote Fletcher that it was wished to send him for the second part, because although a through York and Lancashire to Derby ; sincere admirer of civil and religious li- and he was told, as a rule for his conduct, berty, he thought that those who after one that he might go the length of cursing the conviction could not refrain from a second king to set others a-going; that if he was attempt to destroy the religion and go-apprehended, he need not be alarmed, as vernment of their country, ought to be sent out of it. The question being put, That the word "now" stand part of the question, the House divided: Ayes, 190; Noes, 72: Majority, 118. The bill was then read a second time. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Wednesday, December 22. MARRIAGE ACT.] Dr. Phillimore moved for leave to bring in a bill to amend the act of Geo. 2nd, called the Marriage act. The bill would be similar to that which had received the sanction of the House last session, but which had never been discussed in the Lords, in consequence of the wish of a learned lord to have time to consider the subject. In the interval, he could say, that many cases of nullity of marriage had been decided, as atrocious as any which had excited the indignation-as distressing as any which had excited the sympathy, of the House. He meant cases in which husbands had stepped forward to take advantage of their own perjury to bastardize their issue, or in which innocent persons had been affected by the severity of a law they could not guard against.-Leave was given. CONDUCT OF COLONEL FLETCHER, A MAGISTRATE OF LANCASHIRE.] Mr. Bennet said, he had a petition to present from an individual, praying that the House would not entrust additional powers to magistrates, as he had suffered peculiar hardship from the exercise of that discretion with which they were now invested. The magistrate who was particularly referred to in the petition, was a colonel Fletcher, of Bolton. He should have hesitated to have received such a statement, if he had not inquired respecting the character of the petitioner, John Lever, and found that, though in a humble walk of life, he bore a good character. he would be liberated, though he might not know by what means. The petitioner, with more spirit than discretion, informed his acquaintance of the offer that had been made to him. In consequence of this, he conceived he had fallen under the anger of colonel Fletcher. He was some time after taken up and carried to prison, and while in confinement he was exhibited as a sort of spectacle, under the name of general Lud, as no other individual could be found to answer to that supposed character. After some time, as no allegations could be proved against him, he was dismissed. A short time after, he was taken out of his bed, and put into confinement, without knowing for what, till at last he found that he was committed to Lancaster gaol on a charge of murdering a man he never saw. As to this part of the case, he had inquired, and found in the calendar for 1812, that John Lever, the petitioner, was committed by colonel Fletcher, on the suspicion of having murdered Mr. Chadwick, of Beechhall. He was also able to state that a physician had certified, that the individual, so far from having been murdered, had died of a fever; that there had been an absurd report of his having been injured by a blow received in a scuffle, but that it had been proved on the inquest to be untrue. Yet, notwithstanding this, colonel Fletcher committed the petitioner on suspicion of murdering this individual. The petitioner stated, that to his astonishment no bill was presented to the grand jury against him. Whether this was true he had not the means of knowing, but from the books of the gaol he found the entry respecting the commitment which he had read, and underneath a bill for misdemeanor." His belief was, that there was no bill preferred, and no one bound over to prosecute. When the petitioner was brought up, expecting to be tried for murder, he was tried for a political misdemeanor, and, as he had no means of repelling any charge, was found |