tion of the report on the bill for preventing blasphemous and seditious libels; when Lord Ellenborough proposed, by way of amendment, the following definition of a seditious libel, viz. "one calculated to bring his Majesty's person, or the Government and Constitution, or either House of Parliament, into hatred or contempt, or calculated to excite his Majesty's subjects to attempt any alteration of any matter in church or state as by law established, other wise than by lawful means," Lord Liverpool said he would not object to the amendment, with the addition of the words," or the person of the Prince Regent." Lords Erskine and Holland commented on this definition, and also on the nature of the punishment awarded by the act, which, as heretofore, they pronounced inadequate both in kind and degree.

On the same day, Mr Bennet moved in the Commons for the appointment of a committee to inquire into the present state of the manufacturing districts. By way of preface to his motion, the honourable gentleman entered at great length into the detail of the distresses, which he described as existing in various districts, both in England and Scotland, owing to the want of employment, the consequent low state of wages, which did not afford the labourer the means of subsistence even on the most economical plan, and the severe and unexampled pressure of taxation. In the course of this detail he particularised the rate of wages in many manufacturing towns and districts, and describ. ed the destitute situation to which the labouring classes were reduced; maintaining that, in such circumstances, it was natural that the people should look to Parliament for assistance as if Parliament, by its

VOL. XII. PART I.

mere fiat, could create a demand for superabundant labour and commodities; compel foreign nations to consume more than they had occasion for, or could afford to purchase; induce manufacturers, who were ob liged to sell their commodities at and below the cost of production, to raise the money price of labour, to their own certain and inevitable ruin; or control and regulate that which all men, in the slightest degree informed, know to be as much beyond the reach of mere legislation as the course of the seasons, or the ebbing and flowing of the tide. If no relief was obtained, added Mr Bennet, discontent must be the consequence, and discontent will finally produce despair. He readily admitted, that these feelings had been inflamed by the practices of designing men: but he still contended, that they originated in and were kept alive by what approached to a state of famine. "Give them but food and work, and the House will soon cease to hear of their distresses or their discontents." Very true; the proposal is easily made: nothing can be simpler than to say to Parliament, "Give the people food and work, and they will no longer plot treason, or assemble in such overwhelming masses as to threaten the very existence of the State." But when was it ever before gravely proposed to Parliament, "to find food and work" for the people, to alter the rate of wages, and to destroy, as it were by the talisman of an enchanter, the sufferings and privations that had sprung from the state of Europe for the last twenty-five years, and the altered relations in which all the other nations as well as ourselves have been placed by the return of peace? Surely, if Parliament were as omnipotent as this strange doctrine would lead us to suppose, it

Q

must have been the worst kind of treason against the people, to suffer them to labour for a single day at reduced wages, or with a diminution of those comforts which Mr Bennet supposed Parliament competent to bestow. But if, on the contrary, Parliament could do nothing to alleviate the evils which he described, and which were but too real, inquiry would have been at least useless, or perhaps worse. Upon the best supposition, Parliament could do nothing, and therefore it would have been mere empiricism to pretend to accomplish what is competent to no power save that of the Almighty: and upon the worst, delusive hopes would have been fostered only to be disappointed, and to aggravate the severity of distress by the bitterness of despair. Upon these and similar grounds, Lord Castlereagh opposed the motion of the honourable gentleman. On entering the House, he communicated to Mr Bennet that he did not object, in the first instance, to the appointment of a committee: but he felt the importance of defining specifically what the nature of the inquiry was which was to be entrusted to them. It was a duty which the House owed to the unfortunate classes of society, on whose behalf the inquiry was to be undertaken, not to raise expec tations far beyond the means of parliamentary relief. Was it possible, he asked, for any fund to be established that would secure employment, amidst all the fluctuations of commerce and manufactures? Upon what principle could Government act, if in seasons of difficulty they were to recognise the policy of taking from one class merely for the purpose of giving to another? However disposed he might be to accede to an inquiry, the object of which was to ascertain facts, and to dis

cover more clearly and intelligibly the causes of distress in the manu facturing districts, he must guard his concurrence from any assent to what would in the event be so injurious a proceeding; a proceeding that would go to try over again every subject of local agitation and private dispute, which could be revived in the present irritated state of public feeling.

This motion, which, to our apprehension, appears so absurd and preposterous, was nevertheless supported by great acuteness, ingenuity, and eloquence, particularly by Mr Baring and Mr Tierney, the speech of the latter of whom we regret that our limits forbid us even to abridge. In the course of the lengthened de. bate which took place, the Lord Advocate entered at considerable length into the state of the manufacturing districts of Scotland, detailing both the rate of the wages of labour and the practices of the disaffected in and about Glasgow, with the means which had been adopted by the loyal part of the community, both to defend themselves and their property against the nocturnal and diurnal visitations of the radicals, and if possible to check the progress of the pestilence which seemed then spreading among the lower classes. The motion was finally negatived without a division.

The same day, the training prevention bill was read a third time, and passed.

On the following day, the training prevention bill, with the amendments affixed to it by the Commons, was agreed to by the Lords; and the bill for the prevention of seditious and blasphemous libels read a third time, passed, and sent down to the Commons for their concurrence. As a proof of the necessity of this bill, in order to restrain and punish

those persons who seemed to have organised libel into a regular profession, and whose apparent object was to sap and undermine the whole fabric of the constitution, and of society, we may here notice, that Mr Courtenay, this day, called the attention of the Commons to a pamphlet which had just appeared, and up. on which he founded a motion (which was agreed to,) for calling the printer, Kobert Stoddart, to the bar of the House, to answer for a high breach of its privileges. The following extract will show the nature of this production, and justify the motion of the honourable member: "What prevents the people from walking down to the House and pulling out the members by the ears, locking up their doors, and flinging the key into the Thames? Is it any majesty which lodges in the members of that assembly? Do we love them? Not at all we have an instinctive horror and disgust at the very abstract idea of a boroughmonger. Do we respect them? Not in the least. Do we regard them as endowed with any superior qualities? On the contrary, individually, there is scarcely a poorer creature than your mere member of Parliament; though, in his corporate capacity, the earth furnishes not so absolute a bully. Their true practical protectors, then-the real efficient anti-reformers, are to be found at the Horse Guards and the Knights bridge-barracks. As long as the House of Commons' majorities are backed by the regimental musterroll, so long may those who have got the tax-power keep it, and hang those who resist."

On the 11th, the royal assent was given, by commission, to the bill for preventing military training, and on the 13th the misdemeanour traverse bill was read a third time in the Lords

and passed. Before this, however, the Lord Chancellor proposed a clause, which was adopted, and which provided that the defendant should be brought to trial within twelve months from the time of pleading; and that if the trial did not take place within that period, the defendant might then call on the Attorney-General to proceed with his trial within twenty days, after the expiry of which, if no trial took place, the Attorney-General must enter a nolle prosequi, and the defendant would be relieved from the prosecution.

On the same day, the House of Commons proceeded first with the question of breach of privilege, when the printer of the pamphlet above alluded to appeared at the bar of the House, and gave up the name of the author, Mr John Cam Hobhouse, who having acknowledged himself to be the author of the pamphlet, which had been voted a scandalous libel, and a high contempt of the privileges and constitutional authority of the House, was ordered to be committed to the safe custody of his Majesty's gaol of Newgate. The seditious meetings prevention bill was then, after a long discussion, in which Mr Plunkett participated, read a third time and passed; having previously received some immaterial verbal amendments.

On the 14th, Lord John Russell brought forward the motion, of which he had previously given notice, on the subject of Parliamentary Reform. He began by remarking on the dif ficulties with which he had at present to contend. It was impossible, he said, not to perceive that there were two parties, between whom there prevailed an extreme irritation at this moment; the one urging unreasonable demands, and the other meeting every demand with a peremptory denial; the one claiming

unknown privileges and imaginary rights, and the other ready to cast into oblivion all those ancient liberties which our ancestors shed their blood to establish, and ready to endanger them for ever, in order to obtain a temporary and momentary security. Yet he believed he might make use of a great authority to show that circumstances of this kind did not render the period unfit for going into a full consideration of the subject. In the year 1782, when Mr Pitt submitted his propositions for a reform in the constitution of that House, two of which propositions were similar to his own, he prefaced them with a speech, in which it was observed, that the large expenditure of the Government, and the immense burdens on the country, had produced a sentiment of general disgust; that the people began to turn their eyes inward upon themselves; and that seeing some radical defect, a number of wild plans and theories had been promulgated. Some sound and practical remedy appeared to him, therefore, necessary, as well to limit the influence of the Crown, as to guard the spirit of liberty from misdirection. But although this authority was thus strongly in his favour, he was not aware that many persons in that House were opposed to all theoretical advantages originating in any change of the constitution of Parliament. Those, however, who were generally averse to reform might reconcile their minds to the present question, by reflecting that it involved the consideration of a particular defect, and that they had always professed themselves ready to entertain inquiries of this nature. The Duke of Richmond, too, whose ideas were carried so far with regard to what might be advantageous, had been foremost in the support of a bill which went only to some cor

rection in the abuses of borough elections. Those who were therefore for the largest reform ought not to despise that which it would be the object of his propositions to introduce. Of late years, some towns had risen up into places of great commercial wealth and importance. Other towns had, on the contrary, sunk into decay, and become unfit to enjoy the right of sending representatives to Parliament. On reference to the history of Parliament, it would be found that the principle of a change had been often acknowledged, and the franchise withdrawn on various occasions, as in the case of Malden. Elections had also been granted to new places both by the King's writ and by act of Parliament. When great disorders broke out in the county palatine of Cheshire, the remedy adopted was to give it a representation. When the county palatine of Durham was suffering under similar evils, a similar remedy was adopted. Similar changes had taken place so late as the reign of Charles II. At the Revolution, when it was found necessary to dispossess the Sovereign, it was considered that it would be to disjoint the constitution altogether to add any new power to one of the states; and our ancestors refused at that time to alter in any manner the composition of that House. By the act of Union, too, the Sovereign, it was admitted, could no longer lawfully issue his writ for adding to the number of its members. But the evil consequences which had resulted from this state of things were undeniable. The small boroughs had since become so corrupt as to sell their suffrages, and, on some occasions, so openly as to be visited with punishment by the House. In addition to this, many large and opulent towns had sprung up, and had not yet obtained this