tures who went about hawking these seditious or blasphemous papers could not be looked upon as guilty of libels, and held to bail by every magistrate who may think proper to arrest them. This was never the case, even during the French Revolution. The judges themselves, without a jury, had not power to decide as to what was and what was not a libel, and yet that power was now given to every magistrate, without proof-without judge or jury. His lordship afterwards said, "The press had better be thrown into the fire, than the power of committal be given to every justice of the peace."

The Lord Chancellor objected to the production of the opinions of the judges, which would, he thought, be in several respects a bad precedent. He was clearly of opinion that the whole proceeding was legal, and defended it by the authorities of Mr Northey, Lord Hale, Lord Hard wicke, Sir John Willes, Arthur Hill, Sir Dudley Rider, and Lord Mansfield. He contended that the quotations from Hale and Hawkins by no means warranted the inference drawn from them. Blackstone he considered as a laborious and useful compiler, but by no means very high authority. He was now in the decline of life, and he declared, that he should feel deep regret in his retirement, if he could think that the measures which he had deemed it his duty to advise or support had trenched upon the just liberties of the country; but, on the contrary, he believed sincerely that they had been essential to the preservation of the constitution.

Lord Holland spoke strongly in favour of the motion, contending that the House ought to be guided by the legislature, not by the opinion of any Attorney or Solicitor General. He contended, that the only legal mode of proceeding against libel was by in

dictment. The conduct pursued by the noble viscount was most destructive to the harmony, and fatal to the safety of the country.

Lord Sidmouth should think himself inexcusable if he should attempt to strengthen the arguments already adduced by the highest authorities by any observations of his own. When he had the satisfaction of hearing it proclaimed in that House, that the measure which he had thought it his duty to adopt was conformable to the opinion of the highest legal authority in the country, (the Lord Chancellor,) and of the Lord Chief Justice of the kingdom-when he found that it was conformable to the opinions of the greatest text writers on the law, and also to the recorded practice of all the most eminent law servants of the crown, both before and after they had attained the highest judicial situations

he felt it would be presumptuous in him to attempt to add any weight to this mass of dead and living authorities; but though he did not think it necessary to detain their lordships with any remarks on this point of discussion, yet there was another point on which he should think it a matter of great self-reproach, if he could not vindicate himself to their lordships. It seemed that he stood before their lordships charged with having used his best endeavours to stop the progress of blasphemy and sedition. To that charge he pleaded guilty; and while he lived he should be proud to have such a charge brought against him. He knew that efforts unparal leled had been made to carry into every village and cottage in the manufacturing districts the poison of these seditious and blasphemous doctrines. He had himself seen the effects of these pernicious doctrines on some of these misguided men; and had heard from some of them, while under examination, the free confession that it was the

influence of this poison that had taken them away from their regular duties; that up to the time of their being assailed with those publications, they had been industrious and well-affected members of society; but that themselves, and hundreds of their unfortu nate neighbours, had been corrupted by the insidious principles disseminated by these itinerant hawkers of sedition and blasphemy. Never was there a period, till the present, when blasphemy was so completely enlisted in the service of sedition. A greater number of persons could read now than at any former period; they were better informed; they were collected more in large bodies, especially in manufacturing towns; there was also, he was sorry to say, more ale-houses. Besides, these publications were very cheap, almost gratuitous; and the seditious and blasphemous dealers were itinerant, in order to disseminate their mischievous wares more widely. Such being the case, the magistrates became alarmed, and applied to him (Lord S.) for instructions. It was said that the proceedings ought to be by indictment; but this could not be, till the next quarter-sessions; and by that time these wandering venders might have removed to another quarter of the country.

Earl Grey declared that every thing he had heard only tended to confirm him in his original opinion. He called for law, and they gave him authority; he called for deliberate discussion, and they gave him bare assertions.-The motion, however, was negatived by a majority of 75 to 19.

On the 25th of June, the same sub. ject was brought before the Commons by Sir Samuel Romilly, who contend. ed that no more dangerous power was ever assumed by any servant of the crown. By the command of any magistrate, a person might be held to

bail, or sent to prison, on the oath of an informer. No newspaper, in any part of the country, could criticise the conduct of ministers, or render itself obnoxious to some busy magistrate, without the danger of exposing its author to imprisonment and expence, without trial. The tyranny of the reign of Charles II. could not be greater than this.-The motion, however, was negatived by a majority of 157 to 49.

On the 9th of July, Mr Wilberforce brought forward a motion on the subject of the slave trade. He described the manner and extent in which this horrible traffic was still persisted in. The Hon. Gentleman said, he was afraid that even a great many American subjects, and much American property, had been embarked in the slave trade. It had also been greatly carried on in the colonies on the coast near Goree, since they have been restored to the French. There was reason to believe that in one Dutch colony, the slave trade had been favoured by one individual very greatly. As to Sweden and Denmark, no complaint could be made. But Portugal, notwithstanding our favours, had carried on this infamous traffic to a great extent. All, however, sunk in this scale compared with the devastations of Spain, whose conduct in encouraging so infamous a traffic, he spoke of in the most glowing terms of indignation. In places where schools had been established, and efforts made to induce the chieftains to supply their wants by peaceful industry and legitimate commerce, the Spaniards laboured to persuade them to return to their old habits of selling their subjects, and making war upon their neighbours. The Spanish ships were crowded beyond all precedent. In one instance it had been stated, that of 540 negroes embarked, 340 had died. By a paper

obtained by the Cortes, it appeared that there had been imported into the Havannah in eleven years, from 1799 to 1811, about 110,000, or 10,000 per year, and in the three last years the importation had been much greater. The Spanish and Portuguese flags formed also a covert for the illicit traders of other nations. Mr Wilberforce concluded with moving an address to 'the Prince Regent, praying that his Royal Highness would still endeavour to obtain the total abolition of this traffic.

Lord Castlereagh stated, that since the treaty of Paris, we had been in negociation with Spain and Portugal for the abolition of this trade; but he felt it difficult at present to enter into any statement of the progress of these negociations. He hoped, that by the next meeting of Parliament he would be able to submit to it the result of these negociations. He could not say that this result would be complete; but as far as it should go, he hoped it would be satisfactory.

A number of members delivered their sentiments, all in unison with the motion, which was then put and car ried.

On the following day, Lord Grenville made a motion to the same effect in the House of Peers; when he received from Lord Liverpool a similar assurance, that government would use every effort in their power for the suppression of this odious traffic.

On the 18th of March, Mr Lyttleton rose to bring forward a motion for the abolition of lotteries. The Hon. Gentleman contended, that this mode of raising money was improvident, and the expence of collecting it was greater than that of collecting any other tax of equal revenue. The estimated amount annually was 550,000l.; for this year he would take it at 500,000l. only. He went over the items in re

spect of charge, the price of the tickets, &c., and was of opinion that, calculating all these sums, the people actually paid 840,000l. in order to bring into the Treasury a sum of about 570,000l. The Hon. Gentleman then referred to the scheme of the present lottery, which he pointed out as founded on fallacious views. Instead of 220,000l. in prizes, the real value would only be 108,000l. Mr L. contended that the preamble of the Little Go Act would equally apply to the Great Go Lottery. The Lord Mayor had expressed satisfaction that he was about to bring forward the subject, for he knew the evil was increasing, and required correction; the Corporation of London, too, justified the opinion which the respectable Chief Magistrate had given, for they had petitioned the House to abolish lotteries. Another evil of lotteries was, the great patronage which it created, by providing more than 30 offices, most of them sinecures. He then concluded by moving a set of resolutions, that by the establishment of State Lotteries, a system of gambling had been promoted, which ultimately tended to diminish the resources of the country.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer trusted the House would weigh most seriously before it gave up any part of the revenue of the country, at a time so precarious as the present. With respect to the system of lotteries being unlawful and immoral, unless all games of chance were held to be so, he could not see how lotteries could be so considered; and he believed the severest moralist had never carried his speculations so far. A man might find (if he were determined on it) a great many ways to ruin himself without having recourse to the lottery. Every precaution had been taken by the government to diminish the temptations

to gambling and insurances in the lottery, by raising the price of tickets to prevent the lower orders from embarking in the lotteries. Every endeavour had been used to abolish Little Goes; and, indeed, every species of gambling connected with the lotteries. The late Mr Percival had considerably reduced the number of persons in the lottery department; and it would not be advisable to reduce the commissioners of the lottery any farther. The honourable gentleman seemed to have a very strange idea of lotteries, for he gave it as his opinion, that if the contractors did not sell a single ticket, they would be gainers by the contract. On the contrary, the contractors for lotteries had several times lost by that specula. tion. As to the scruples of the city of London with respect to lotteries, they had only seized the city lately; for it is not many years ago that the city got an Act of Parliament for a lottery of its own, of which the principal prize was a house valued at 20,000l., and he had been told that house was sold with difficulty for 7,000l.

Sir S. Romilly thought the facts which had formerly been laid before them, must shew sufficiently to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was high time to follow the example of the city of London, and abandon lotteries altogether. He agreed that this was not a time to give up any considerable part of our revenue; but it was not a time also for us to give up any part of the morals of the people. The revenue was, nevertheless, injured by the number of persons who were reduced to parochial relief by the evil of gambling in the lotteries. So frequent were lotteries now, that to use the words of a contractor, "the public was not recovered from one lottery before another was drawn." If the right honourable gentleman had attended to the report of a former

Committee, he would have seen, that at the time of the drawing of the lotteries, the trades that supplied the necessaries of life were nearly at a stand; and the only trade that flourished was the pawnbroker. He read several lottery advertisements, shewing the allurements held out to industrious bodies, to induce them to embark in the destructive gambling system of the lotteries. These lottery people selected the most honest and industrious persons to spread their poison among them. There seemed to him a most utter incongruity, how the right honourable gentleman could one day preside at a Bible Society, and the next at a meeting of lottery contractors. If the right honourable gentleman could go into the work-houses, prisons, and mad-houses, to see the persons now distressed and agonized by the proved consequences of the lottery, he did not believe that he could still persevere in them; much less would he cast a sneer at the city of London for having recently given up lotteries.

Mr J. Ward thought we could not at present spare 5 or 600,000l. a-year, without occasioning more evils than those which arose from the lotteries. At the same time, the lottery system was a shameful system, liable to destroy all industry, forethought, and morality. He thought that the abo lition of lotteries was a boon due to the English nation, as soon as we had a return of prosperous times.

Lord A. Hamilton and Mr B. Moreland spoke in support of the motion. The House then divided-For the original motion, 26-Against it, 72-Majority, 46.-Adjourned.

On the 8th of July, Mr Bennet brought up a report from the Police Committee. The honourable member, in moving that the report should lie on the table, said, the Committee had

thought it right to divide this report into two classes, one of which particularly related to parliamentary rewards, and the other to the punishment of juvenile offenders. The Committee considered that the rewards at present existing, usually known by the name of blood-money, were inducements to perjury; and minor rewards had frequently the same effect. He could particularly state to the House one instance of perjury committed for the sake of reward; this was in the conviction of paupers. It appeared in evidence before the Committee, that in one parish a person had been detected giving money to poor persons in the street, for the very purpose afterwards of taking them to a police-office, informing against them as paupers, and getting the reward of 10s. upon each conviction. The honourable gentleman then adverted to the great increase of juvenile crimes within the last four years, and stated, that in 1813, the number of boys committed to prison under 13 years of age was 62; in 1814, the number amounted to 98; in 1815, it was 88; and in 1816, the number increased to 146. Another subject to which the Committee had paid their particular attention, was, that of transportation, and the expence which that system entailed on the public. Since 1812, the number of persons transported amounted to no less than 4659, of this number 226 were transported for 14 years, 1716 for seven years, and the rest for life. The expence attend. ing the hulks and Botany Bay was most enormous, and had increased of late years to a most alarming degree. Taking the average of the last 15 years, it would be found to amount to no less a sum than 225,580l. annually. This was a sum beyond any former precedent, a burthen upon the public, from which they derived no adequate advantage. The Committee consider

ed this as a subject demanding the most serious attention of parliament, at as early a period as possible.

On the 28th of April, petitions were presented to the two Houses by the Academical Society, formed in London for the investigation of philosophical, literary, historical, and, above all, political subjects. Two of the members had applied to the quarter sessions for a licence, under the act for restraining seditious assemblies. There were present the Lord Mayor, Sir John Perring, Aldermen Smith and Domville. The two former declared their readiness to grant the licence, but the two latter refused, unless on condition of omitting politics; which, as these formed the favourite topic, was positively refused. It was then propounded, that the questions for debate should be furnished beforehand to the magistrates, subject to their approval. This was positively rejected. The Mayor then, as the votes on the two sides were equal, did not think it in his power to grant the licence. This subject was brought under the view of the House of Lords, by Lord Darnley, who observed, that no one of their lordships could have imagined, that a case like that which he was about to notice would have been brought under the provisions of the seditious meetings bill. His lordship referred to the steps taken by the magistrates, and the refusal to grant to the Academical Society a licence, which has given rise to the present proceeding, which was to ascertain whether the proper interpretation had been put on that bill; and he thought this subject involved a most important question connected with the rights and privileges of the people of Great Britain. He hoped that he should receive an answer from the noble Secretary for the Home Department, which would satisfy the House that the magistrates