happy to say, that the disaffection was confined to the persons engaged in the iron-manufactories and the collieries, which, however, composed the great mass of the population. He certainly had said nothing against the agricultural part of the community, for he believed the greater part of the agricultural classes were perfectly well-affected. From all the information he had been enabled to procure, he could take upon himself to say, that the statement he had formerly made, was rather underrated than exaggerated.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Friday, December 10.

BLASPHEMOUS LIBEL BILL.] Lord Sidmouth moved the third reading of this bill. The bill was accordingly read a third time, and the question being put, «That this bill do pass,”

The Earl of Carnarvon rose to move the amendment, of which he had given notice. The principle of the bill had been already so fully discussed, that nothing which might be said by him on that subject was likely to alter their lordships' determination. He must, however, observe, that this bill was now arrived at its last stage, without its being known whether the ground on which it was recommended to their lordships adoption was well founded or not. It had not been ascertained in what degree the laws were deficient in the power to punish blasphemous and seditious libels, or whether they were deficient at all. On that point, the most important for their lordships consideration, they had heard nothing which bore out the assertions of the supporters of the bill. Blasphemous and seditious libels had been allowed to circulate to a great extent within these two or three years; but it was with astonishment he heard the necessity of passing new laws asserted, on the ground of the insufficiency of those which now existed to check such publications. In order to see what foundation there was for this assertion, their lordships had only to look at the return on the table of the number of prosecutions. By that paper it appeared, that the whole of the prosecutions by information, of blasphemous and seditious libels, during the year 1818, amounted to nil! In turning to see what had been the number by indictment, he thought that a proper regard to the constitution had induced the law officers of the Crown (VOL. XLI.)

;

to adopt a mode of action which was justly more popular than information but when he had turned to that head, there he found nil also! That the government and the officers of the Crown should not think it necessary to institute prosecutions, when the evil of which they complained was at its height, and should now come to parliament for a new law, without having tried the old, was most extraordinary. Having made this observation, which the paper on the table naturally suggested, he had now to state the principle which induced him to propose an amendment to the bill. That principle was, that in time of alarm, great caution ought to be exercised, before any permanent change in the law was adopted. At the beginning of the session those who opposed the measures introduced were willing to give ministers temporary powers to enable them to repress any disaffection which might be found really to exist; but they protested against making local dangers a ground for passing permanently restrictive laws. The same consideration had induced him to make one attempt before the bill was finally adopted, to prevail on their lordships to do that which ought always to be done in such cases; namely, to give only a temporary power to ministers, and to reserve for future consideration the question, whether the law was fit to be rendered permanent. Last night the noble and learned lord on the woolsack, whose mind possessed the richest stores of legal knowledge, had hesitated to apply to a bill, a clause the principle of which he admitted, until he had time for further inquiry, and was not satisfied that the postponement of the bill till Tuesday would afford sufficient opportunities for his research. If that noble and learned person could not by Tuesday make up his mind on a subject with which he was so well acquainted, how could the few days in which their lordships had been occupied in the consideration of this bill be sufficient to satisfy them that it ought to be made perinanent? He believed that to make a wise law on the subject of libel, one that should equally protect the liberty of the subject and the security of the government, was one of the most difficult tasks a legislative assembly could undertake; and yet, upon a proposition made last night, their lordships were called upon to make such a law permanent. He could not but regret that no satisfactory reason had been given for altering the law. (3 R)

He must therefore resist so great and permanent a change in the constitution. Before the last clause authorizing the alteration of the act in the present session, he would propose to introduce a clause declaring that it should continue in force two years and no longer.

Lord Sidmouth could not admit that this bill was a violation of the constitution for a temporary purpose. The noble earl had stated, that he and his friends had been ready to co-operate in temporary measures of restriction. He certainly did not understand that to be the case; but if it had, such co-operation could not have been accepted by his majesty's ministers with respect to the present bill. Was the danger to be guarded against one of a local description, or one the legislation against which ought to be temporary? That danger was the circulation of blasphemous and seditious libels; and it was their lordships duty to mark their opinion of the importance of putting down such crimes by passing permanent laws for that purpose. In estimating the nature of this bill, their lordships should consider what the law on the subject of libel had been previously to the act which an hon. and learned gentleman introduced in another place. The punishment for libel was then fine, imprisonment, or the pillory, or all three. It was not, however, proposed by the present bill to make the punishment in the first instance so severe. Only fine and imprisonment attached to a first libel; on a second conviction, banishment and transportation were added. He would ask their lordships, whether, considering the great increase of the crime of libel, these could be regarded as too heavy punishments? Whether the framers of the bill had shown a disposition to push the law to a severity beyond what the exigency of the case required? But the noble earl had referred to the papers on the table; and it was unques. tionably true, that no prosecutions had been instituted during the year 1818 for blasphemous and seditious libels. But their lordships could not doubt that the attorney and solicitor-general had reasons to assign for this forbearance. Whether their reasons would appear satisfactory to the noble lords opposite, he could not pretend to say. He could, however, assure their lordships, that the subject had been fully considered by two of the most able men in the profession of the law; and the course which had been

adopted was by them considered the most advisable. When he mentioned to their lordships the name of sir Samuel Shepherd, they would be sensible that he could refer to no public character more distin guished for transcendant talents and private worth. After what took place in the court of King's-bench in the course of the year 1817, particularly after the remarkable acquittal on a prosecution for blasphemous libel, a very strong impres sion was produced, that the existing law could not be successfully enforced. But with regard to the year 1818, the fact was, that public libels had during that year become less numerous, and a hope was entertained, which unfortunately proved fallacious, that the temptation to publish had decreased with the disposition to purchase such poison. When it was found that the expectation formed in 1818 had been disappointed, and that libels again increased, it was thought necessary to look to a sufficient remedy. All the arguments, and all the conduct of the noble lords on the other side, formed the very counterpart of what he recollected to have passed in 1792. When his majesty's proclamation was issued against libels, then loud charges were made against the government for not prosecuting. The instruction given to the magistrates to perform their duty was described to be the holding out encouragement for spies. When an association was formed, in which were to be found the names of the late Mr. Windham, Mr. Perceval, and other distinguished persons, and subscriptions entered into for the prosecution of libels, these proceedings were called op. pressive and unconstitutional, and were held up to opprobrium as an attack on the liberty of the press. On the 18th of September in the subsequent year, Paine was convicted of publishing his seditious libel; but still the same conduct was pursued by those who opposed his majesty's government. Now, what had happened within the last two or three years showed that the same course was still followed. Seeing the difficulty which had arisen in prosecuting, and the art with which some libels were framed, he had addressed a letter to the magistrates, recommending a course which appeared best adapted to the case. Before he had done this, he had taken the opinion of the highest legal authorities, and the answer he received from them was, that the magistrates had the right of holding to bail

library as to protect him against the ruin of transportation if he made a mistaken estimate of every writing on political subjects which he had sold, more especially when the libellous characters of such publications depended upon opinions which might differ, and not upon any plain rule of law. It was manifest, therefore, that by extending the bill to other objects, blasphemy was made a mere stalking horse to justify, and by imposition to render popular the new projected fetters on the press, so as to deter men from examining and publishing the acts of government, dreading every public scrutiny into the vices or errors of its administration. Lord Erskine said, that his noble friend (lord Holland) had alluded to a passage in the works of Mr. Burke, exposing the corruption of an addressing parliament, and a petitioning and complaining people. There were many other most eloquent ones of the same description, one of which he repeated, and said, that coming from the pen of some obscure author instead of Mr. Burke, whose character was established and out of reach, it might have been prosecuted, and the terrors of transportation might have been made use of to suppress such valuable works. He should therefore support the amendment.

The Duke of Wellington thought his noble and learned friend who had just sat down had completely mistaken the question. What their lordships had to consider was, not whether the present law of libel was sufficient with regard to a first offence, or whether the government ought to have instituted more prosecutions; but whether it was proper now to pass a law for inflicting a severer punish ment on persons convicted a second time of the same offence. What had given occasion to the introduction of the present measure was, as he understood, the case of Carlile. That person had not only continued the sale of the libel for which he was prosecuted, after conviction, but had published other libels, and had also published the same libel for which he was tried in another form, before sentence was passed upon him. No person who considered the circumstances of that case could avoid seeing that the law was not strong enough to prevent the repetition of the offence. The question there fore was, whether their lordships would enable the judges to inflict an additional punishment in such a case-whether they

would not adopt a measure which had for its object to prevent the repetition of so atrocious an offence.

Lord Holland, though the grounds on which this measure had been defended had often varied, did not expect at this period of the discussion to hear it stated, that it had been brought forward for the reason the noble duke assigned. It seemed now, that all that had been stated in support of the bill was unfoundedthat it was not a general increase of libels that had given it origin, but a desire to apply punishment to a particular repetition of the offence, because one man had after conviction continued to publish: but it was a pity the noble duke did not think it necessary to go one step farther, and to show that the court was not able to punish this offender. If he did publish fresh libels, did not every separate publication afford a ground for further punishment? If their lordships were to go on to punish on such grounds, they must next apply the penalty of death to this offence, for nothing else remained. When the discussion of the present measure first commenced, it was stated that libellous publications had greatly increased, and that the acquittal of Mr. Hone had been a great cause of that increase. A return of the number of prosecutions, embracing that period having been moved for and produced, it was to be expected that this assertion would have been confirmed; but on referring to it to see what prosecutions had been instituted during the year after Mr. Hone's acquittal, what was the number returned? None. The noble viscount, in answer to the observation of his noble friend on this subject, says, that during that period the fact was, that the number of libels published did actually decrease. This was contrary to every thing that had been stated before. For his part, he had no inclination to look after libels; but he must say, that the most blasphemous and seditious he had ever met with were published in that very year 1819, when, according to the noble viscount, the taste for that sort of publication had so much declined; and yet no prosecution had been instituted in that year. Here, he observed, he must repeat the observation of his noble and learned friend, that fault was not found with ministers for not prosecuting, if prosecutions were unnecessary. was not made a charge against them; but when they proposed new laws, on

That