and augment. He would, however, incidentally discuss that question, to shew the propriety of producing the case submitted to the Law-officers, with a view to a more mature and deliberate inquiry upon the subject. Lord G. then entered into a long, learned, and elaborate argument, to shew that the opinion of the Law-officers was not sanctioned by the common or statute Law, the dicta of Judges, or the decisions of Courts, or the tenor of the commissions granted to Justices of the Peace. In proof of the injurious consequences of the promulgation of the contrary doctrine, he instanced the complaint made on Saturday last, in the Court of King's Bench, against the Rev. Mr. Powis, for convicting a man under the Stamp-laws; and referred to the prosecution of Mr. Wright, at Liverpool, for denying the immortality of the soul and a future state; though it appeared that in his sermon he had only argued against the separate existence of the soul, an opinion maintained by the late Dr. Priestley, and which some high authorities even of the Church of England had supported, and did support, with a firm belief in Christianity and its hopes. His Lordship then observed, that for many years he had seen with pain, that all things tended to the establishment of a Military dominion. If this fatal course were persevered in, either the people would be driven to open violence to regain their freedom, or a military despotism would be established on the ruins of the Constitution. Severe, indeed, had been the trials through which the people had passed, and they had borne them with a firmness that had no example: but, if the present system were pursued, more cruel sufferings yet remained, and more bitter privations must still be endured. He should, however, have the consolation of knowing, in the worst extremes, that he had done his duty. He concluded an eloquent and argumentative speech by moving for a copy of the case laid before the Attorney and Solicitor-General.

Lord Ellenborough contended, that the law and practice had uniformly been contrary to the argument maintained by the preceding speaker; and produced a bundle of recognizances which, he said, had been entered into, before indictment found, or information filed, under every AttorneyGeneral from the Revolution downward. Could any body say, then, that this practice was not founded on Law? Would any body state, that it had been only introduced in very recent times by Attorney. Generals who were hostile to the liberties of the people? Upon the fullest consideration of the subject, he was decidedly of opinion, that Justices of the Peace had power to hold to bail in cases of libel.

Lord Erskine dissented from the opinion of the Chief Justice and the Law-officers. If their Law was correct, how happened it that it had not, in a single instance, been acted upon, in the numerous prosecutions for libel soon after the French Revolution? If the Law had been so clear, why did not Lord Sidmouth write his letter at once, without referring to the Law-officers? Did the Attorney and Solicitor-General venture to say this was such a general practice as his Noble and Learned Friend had stated? No; they only said, that the contrary opinion had not been established. Was there ever an instance within this country, for centuries past, of a Magistrate going into a bookseller's shop to look for libels, and then, on his own authority, to hold the party to bail? Yet this might be done, if the present opinion was Law. Could any thing be more dangerous to the security of the subject? He would only say this that when he was Counsel, and during all the time he practised at the Bar, he never had the smallest idea that a Justice of the Peace could hold to bail for a libel.

The Lord Chancellor concurred in opinion with the Chief Justice and the Law-officers; but protested against being bound by his present opinion, if the matter came to be argued before the House on a writ of error. He objected to the production of the case moved for, because it was hardly possible on any such occasion that some particulars should not be stated by the Ministers of the Crown which it would be highly improper and inconvenient to disclose. In 1794, it should be recollected that a proclamation had been issued, requiring the Magistrates to take notice of the numerous libellous publications which were industriously circulated at that period.

Lord Holland maintained that the Justices had not legally the power of committing in cases of libel. He felt gratitude to Lord Sidmouth for the peace he had negociated in 1801, and the good-humour with which he had let down the harsh and domineering character assumed by the preceding Government. But he had of late assumed an attitude of menace; and done more to curtail the liberties of his country in the last three months, than he had done all his life before to defend them.

Lord Sidmouth expressed his satisfaction that his conduct had been justified by such high legal authorities as the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice. The country had been inundated by cheap seditious and blasphemous publications, which had now a wider range of mischief, as more persons could read than formerly, and there were more alehouses to which the lower orders resorted. His attention

had

Earl Grey said, that Mr. Wright had been held to bail for opinions not only common to Unitarian Christians, but even to distinguished Prelates, as the Reverend Prelate well knew. He then contended that nothing had been advanced on the other side to shake the arguments he had urged. The cases on which they relied, were unsupported by any statute, or any decision of a Court of Justice. He was astonished at the insinuation of increased danger because there were a greater number of readers now than formerly. Did the Noble Secretary meau to say, that the Christian Religion stood on such infirm ground, that it was to apprehend an increase of danger from an increase of knowledge? As to parodies on sacred compositions, he thought the prosecutions ought to commence a little further back; and he read from the Anti-Jacobin a parody on one of the Psalms, in which the Courier, Star, Morning Chronicle, and Morning Post, with Coleridge, Southey, Priestley, &c. are called on to praise Lepaux, the French Director. If justice were to be dealt impartially, he thought the author of this parody, whether in the Cabinet, or any other place, should be looked after, as well as the subject of the present prosecution. The motion was then negatived, by 75 to 10.

In the Commons, the same day, a motion by Sir C. Mordaunt for the second reading of the Birmingham Poor Rates Bill was, after a long debate, negatived, by 103 to 36. The object of the Bill was to make the whole of the ground-renters in Birmingham liable to the rate.

In a conversation respecting Lord Sidmouth's answers to the Reading Magistrates, Mr. H. Addington stated that Lord S. had directed that the state prisoners should be treated with all practicable lenity; and Mr. B. Bathurst asserted that they were under the care of the Sheriff, and not of the Justices, and that the Secretary of State had a right to give directions as to their treatment.

The Game Preservation Bill, introduced by Sir E. Knatchbull, was read the third time and passed; and a clause was added to it, for punishing persons destroying game by night.

The House having gone into a Committee on the Army Estimates, Lord Palmers

ton, in moving resolutions for the service of the year, stated the savings and reductions effected since last year, or now in the course of being effected. The total reduction would amount to about 61,000 men; and the diminution of expence, as compared with last year, would be about 1,800,000. He enlarged on the great reductions and retrenchments made since the peace, as affording an incontestable proof that Ministers were not callous to the feelings of the people. The amount of the charge for the year was reduced to 6,385,000/.; and out of that was the sum of 2,572,000l. for past services. He then moved 121,000 men for the land service for the year.

After a short discussion the Resolutions were agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS, May 13. Lord Erskine, adverting to what had passed on the former evening, in respect of the power of Justices, stated his intention of framing a motion, with a view of procuring a return of the number of commitments for libels by Magistrates; the recognizances entered into in the Court of King's Bench, and at Sessions; and also the indictments found at Sessions. If the Law should be as stated last night, the Noble and Learned Lord said, he could not rest until that Law was altered, because it would give a greater power to Magistrates than they ought to possess.

In the Commons, the same day, Mr. Bennet presented a petition from W. Griffiths, a stationer, in Oxford-street, setting forth that he had, at a great expence and trouble, prosecuted to conviction a Captain Hoy, who had made an assault on the petitioner's wife, with intent to violate her person; that Capt. Hoy had in vain attempted to substantiate an alibi, and that one of his witnesses had been convicted of perjury; that though he had been sentenced to a fine of 20% and one year's imprisonment, he had been enlarged, after a fortnight's confinement, by order of the Magistrates, and now frequently paraded before the petitioner's door, exulting in the success of his iniquity, and insulting the petitioner with impunity.

Mr. B. Bathurst thought the case would more properly come before the Court of King's Bench.

Mr. Brougham thought, that after sentence was passed, nothing should have relieved the defendant but a pardou from the Crown. The petition was ordered to be printed.

ments, the discussion of which he wished to stand over to a future day.

Mr. Brougham objected to Government lending money and forcing security. Next he objected that this measure would not relieve the country, as it was not money, but employment, which was wanted. Next, he did not consider this would have any good effect, as it would not throw any greater capital into the money-market. The difficulties of giving securities required by the Chancellor of the Exchequer would prevent persons who wanted to borrow obtaining relief from this fund. Next, he had to state, that he did not believe the sum intended to be advanced was large enough to do any good. He also thought it extremely objectionable that a million and three-fourths of money should be issued by the Government to the people at a time when we were upon the eve of an event which would call upon the people to exercise their judgment respecting the character and measures of that Government-he meant a dissolution of Parliament, which would take place a few months after their rising. He did not throw out these objections captiously, but with a feeling friendly to the measure.

Mr. Western, in addition to the objec. tions just stated, observed, that the Bill would subject those of the higher orders, who refused to give the required securities, to the odium of standing between their poorer neighbours and the relief offered by Government.

Mr Vansittart said, the money was not to be issued by his Majesty's Ministers individually; and the apprehension of exercising any influence through the Commissioners, was removed, by the independent and honourable character of those Commissioners. The details of the measure, as to securities and the distribution of relief, would be found to obviate most of the difficulties stated on those subjects.

Mr. J. P. Grant and Mr. Lockhart expressed their fears that the Bill would produce no practical benefit.

Mr. Rose and Mr. Hurst maintained a contrary opinion.

The House having then gone into a Committee, Mr. Vansittart proposed his new clauses; one was for appointing persons Commissioners, viz. Lord R. Seymour, Sir T. Acland, Mr. W. Lamb, Sir C. Edmonstone, sir James Shaw, Sir J. Perring, Mr. Gooch, Mr. Edward Littleton, Mr. Luttrell, Mr. C. Grant, sen. Mr. Curwen, Mr. Estcourt, Mr. Casberd, Mr. J. Smith, Mr. H. Swann, Mr. B. Harrison, Mr. Reid, Chairman of the E. I. C. (not a Member of the House), Mr. Thornton, Mr. Philips, Mr. Angerstein, Mr. C. Baring, Mr. Joseph Tierney, and Mr. Bosanquet.

The Report was afterwards brought up, and ordered for further consideration on Wednesday next.

May 15.

In answer to a question from Mr. Ponsonby, Lord Castlereagh said, that after the holidays a communication would be made to the House concerning the internal state of the country; after which the same proceedings would be proposed as had taken place in the early part of the Session, and it would be referred to a Committee to enter into an inquiry as to the measures proper to be pursued. His Majesty's Ministers, in the present situation of the country, thought themselves called on to propose a continuance of the measure now in operation. (Loud cries of Hear, hear!)

Mr. Phillips suggested that there should be a call of the House; to which Lord Castlereagh assented.

In answer to a question from Mr. Brougham, Lord Castlereagh repeated that a communication would be made to the House, after which a Committee would be proposed for the purpose of making an inquiry, as at the beginning of the Session; after which his Majesty's Ministers would propose to Parliament a continuation of the measures now in force.

Mr. Brougham. "Am I then to understand, that a Committee is to inquire, and that this is to be the result of the inquiry?" (Hear, hear!)

Sir F. Burdett remarked, that there could be no doubt what would be the result of the inquiry. But he should first move for a list of the persons confined under the present Act, who they were, when taken, and where imprisoned.

Mr. Brougham hoped that some Member, of more weight than himself, would give notice of a motion for an Address, praying his Royal Highness the Prince Regent not to dissolve Parliament while the Habeas Corpus Act was under suspension.

Mr. Phillips moved that the House should be called the 2d of June.

Mr. J. P. Grant reminded the House that the Lord Advocate for Scotland had stated that the conspiracy at Glasgow was not confined to the poorer classes of the community. The fact, however, was, that only one person above the rank of a working man had been taken, and he declared that he had nothing to do with political clubs. This person, for whom 3000!. bail had been refused, had, after a causeless confinement of six weeks, been dis charged without any bail.

Sir J. Newport took a view of the finan. cial situation of Ireland, and urged that she should have a proportionate abatement of taxation to what this part of the United Kingdom had been allowed. Last Session 17,000,000/. of taxes had been taken off for Great Britain, and the relief for Ireland was only 340,000. The policy of the inordinate taxation of Ireland defeated itself. We had imposed on Ireland,

in a few years, 3,500,000l. and yet the revenue of last year exceeded that of 1808 only by 10.0007.

Mr. V. Fitzgerald controverted the accuracy of several of the calculations of the preceding speaker; and contended that any further remission of taxes, in the present circumstances of the country, was impossible.

Mr. Ponsonby, Sir H. Parnell, Mr. D. Browne, and Mr. M. Fitzgerald, supported the resolutions; which were opposed by Mr. Vansittart, and negatived without a division.

HOUSE OF LORDS, May 16.

Petitions were presented from the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge against the Catholic Claims; and a petition from the Merchants and Bankers in Bristol against Extents in aid.

Lord Donoughmore then addressed the House at some length on the subject of Catholic Emancipation; and combated the objections which had at various former periods been urged against that measure. He stated that the Catholicks had selected two persons; who would give their Lordships every information as to the securities they had to offer against any Foreign influence hostile to the interests of the State. He concluded with moving, that their Lordships should go into a Committee to consider of the Claims of the Catholicks.

The Bishop of Llandaff could not agree to that anomaly in Government, the admission of men to places of power and trust who owed spiritual allegiance to a Foreign Power.

The Bishop of Norwich said, this was probably the last time he should address their Lordships on this, or any other subject. The exclusion of the Catholicks from office had been the longest persecution ever known. From the Restoration downwards, the Catholic Clergy had been most loyal and peaceable; and those who now excited a cry of danger from admitting them to equal privileges with their countrymen, would, as Dr. Johnson expressed it, cry out," Fire," in the middle of the Thames!

The Bishop of Ossory opposed the motion, as pregnant with danger to the Protestant Establishment in Church and State. If the Catholicks renounced foreign allegiance, they ceased to be Roman Catholicks. In the Netherlands, the Catholick Clergy had very recently impressed upon their flocks, that a good Roman Catholick could not take an oath of allegiance to a Protestant King.

Lord Harrowby saw no danger from granting the claims of the Catholicks.

Lord Liverpool was for adhering to the Revolution settlement in Church and State.

If the demands of the Catholicks were complied with, Parliament would cease to be a Protestant Parliament; and he was not disposed to risk an experiment whe ther a Government different from the Esta blished Church could long exist.

Lord Darnley supported the motion, as the only means of tranquillizing Ireland; and expressed a confident expectation that, in a short time, the measure would be recommended by the Executive, and be eventually carried.

Lord Grenville contended, that the res toration of the Pope, and the return of peace, had done away most of the objec, tions which had been urged for the last 16 years against the admission of Catholicks to an equality of rights with Protestants. The real danger to a Protestant Establish ment in Ireland arose, not from admitting the Catholicks. the great majority of the population, within the pale of the Consti tution, but from perpetuating the system of exclusion.

Earl Bathurst did not believe that, hav. ing granted all that the Catholicks desired, they would then be satisfied; for they would demand the establishment of their Church.

Earl Grey, at considerable length, answered the objections made to the mo tion.

In the Commons, the same day, Lord Lascelles withdrew the Bill formerly brought in by him for rating Coal-mines to the poor; and brought in a new Bill for mak ing the proprietors of mines rateable for the profits; which was read the first time,

ted; and a clause was adopted for allow The Savings Banks Bill was re-commit. ing parochial relief, in cases where the sum possessed by the pauper did not exceed 301.

The Clergy Residence Bill was committed. The clause allowing a Clergyman to farm was carried by 38 to 35; and the blank was filled up with "eighty acres."

23

لا

Lord Castlereagh, in answer to a question from Sir M. W. Ridley, said the appointment of a Secret Committee on the State of the Nation' would be moved for immediately after the holidays.

Mr. Tierney observed that the Committee was to be appointed, he supposed, not for the purpose of inquiry, but of frightening the House.

Lord Castlereagh replied, that Ministers were of opinion that the safety of the country required a further continuation of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus; but the House, if they did not find good grounds for such a judgment, were not to give effect to the intention of Ministers.

On the question for the third reading of the Lottery Bill, Mr. Lyttelton repeated his objections to State Lotteries; and moved that the third reading should take place that day six months.

The motion was supported by Mr. Wilberforce, Lord A. Hamilton, Mr. Tierney, and Mr. P. Grenfell; and opposed by Mr. Ward. On a division, it was negatived, by

73 to 48.

During the third reading, Mr. Grenfell moved to expunge the clause allowing the Bank 30001. for the management of the Lottery; and took the opportunity of again calling the attention of the House to the enormous profits made by the Bank.

Mr. Vansittart supported the clause, but would be ready to listen to any proposition for diminishing the expence of lottery management on a future occasion. The amendment was negatived without a division.

The Justiceships in Eyre Abolition Bill, Exchequer Offices Regulation Bill, and Offices Compensation Bill, were read a second time, after some conversation on each, but without producing any novelty of argument on either side. On the lastmentioned Bill there was a division, when the question for the second reading was carried, by 105 to 45.

Reform, a task which he felt to be now much more arduous than at former periods. That corruption, the proof of which, in former times, would have been sufficient for parliamentary inquiry, was now openly avowed and recommended as necessary for conducting the affairs of the Nation. He felt it peculiarly awkward to complain before those very persons who were the ob jects of complaint; and to call upon those who must be supposed to be corrupt, to redress corruption: but the general voice of the Nation was so manifestly and so strongly for this measure, that it claimed their utmost regard. There were petitions on the table from more than 1,000,000 of persons. Many of them were for Annual Parliaments. Whatever difference of opinion might exist as to the expediency of resorting to that remedy, be would contend that Annual Parliaments would be no innovation. From a period long prior to William the Conqueror, and down to the time of Henry III. the law and practice had been to call Parliaments twice in the year, or oftener, if necessary. In the reign of Edward III. Laws expressly enact that Parliaments be called every year. In the time of the civil wars between the houses of York and Lancaster, the party that happened to prevail could do every thing or nothing: yet even then the rights of the people were so far respected that Parliaments were not prorogued or continued longer than a year. Henry VIII. was the first who violated this express law, and continued Parliaments for five years, in order to carry his objects of divorcing his Queen and plundering the Church. The same system was continued under Edward VI. Queen Mary re-established short Parliaments, and, repealing the Acts of constructive treason passed by her father, placed the security and freedom of the subject under the protection of 25 Edw, III. Long Parliaments were revived under Elizabeth, and continued under her successor. Charles I. backed by the Judges and the greatest Lawyers of the time, tried the experiment of governing without a Parliament; but he failed, and lost his life, only because he had not a standing army. The Parliament which had fought the battles of the people against him was continued, from a princi ple of foolish generosity, until they gave way to Cromwell, who proposed a plan of Parliamentary Reform so just, so fair, and so suitable, that even Lord Clarendon said it deserved to have proceeded from a more warrantable quarter. But, when Cromwell found that he must either lose

his place, which to him would be to become a victim to the gallows, or support by the sword what he had acquired by the sword, he naturally preferred the latter alternative. Charles II. in return for the affectionate reception he had met from

the