Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

ation, and in all those practices which notoriously prevailed? His majesty's government had been asked why more prosecutions had not been instituted. He could only say, that the answer to that question was of itself a strong argument in defence of this proceeding. No effort had been left untried during the last 12 months to bring persons charged with blasphemous and seditious libels to justice. It had, notwithstanding, been found impossible in the present state of the law to obtain more than one conviction. If then there did exist a lamentably great and pressing evil, he trusted the House would not be indisposed to adopt some measure of this kind.

Lord Holland was averse to the bill on various grounds, and ended by saying, that after what he had shown of the nature of this bill, it was manifest that its title was grossly deceiving: it professed to be a bill to prevent delays in prosecutions for misdemeanors, but it did not say one word of the greatest delays those which occurred in proceedings by ex officio informations. By the wise provision of those great men who lived at the time of the Revolution in 1688, and to whose authority their lordships often referred, improper delay could not occur by allowing the accused time to plead, because in prosecutions by indictment the defen. dants were obliged to enter into recognizances, which they must forfeit, if they did not appear to plead. But in proceedings by ex-officio informations, the attor ney-general had the power of punishing a person accused,

though not convicted, of a libel, by keeping a prosecution hanging over his head for life. He did not say that this had been done by the present attorneygeneral, or his predecessors; but this he would say, that there were at present 40 informations depending, some of which had been hanging over the parties accused for one, two, three, four, five, and some for ten years, and this must surely be admitted to be a shocking state of the law. He could not hope that his opposition would prevent the bill from passing, even in its present state; but if it were so altered as to legislate on both sides, by preventing the delays which occurred in prosecutions by ex-officio informations, as well as in those by indictment, he should perhaps give it his feeble support on the third reading.

On the 3rd reading of the bill on Dec. 13th, the lord Chancellor rose to propose an additional clause, to provide for bringing on the trial of a defendant within a twelvemonth from the time of pleading. If the trial did not take place within that time, the defendant might then call upon the attorney-general as prosecutor for the crown, to proceed to trial within 20 days. If the attorney-general did not then choose to proceed, he must enter a noli prosequi.

After a few words of acknowledgment from Lord Holland, for the handsome manner in which his suggestion had been adopted, the bill passed.

It also passed the House of Commons without opposition.

House

House of Lords, Nov. 30.

Lord Sidmouth rose to call the attention of their lordships to the measures which the ministers of his royal highness the Prince Regent thought it necessary to propose in the present state of the country. It was unnecessary for him to go into any detail of the danger in which the country was placed: it was known that a conspiracy existed for the subversion of the constitution in church and state, and of the rights of property. Their lordships would feel, as he stated, with grief, that the press was one of the principal instruments employed for this purpose. That art which was calculated to instruct and console, was perverted to rob mankind of all hope of future happiness, because it was thought that when the people had lost the consolation of religion, they would be more prepared to throw off their allegiance. He should now describe the measures designed to meet this evil. It was the essential character of a free press, that its productions were not interfered with before publication; this principle was preserved in the bill which he had to offer,-for a moment, and only for a moment, had it been in contemplation to depart from it. Neither was it designed to visit offenders with an increase of punishment on the first instance; but it was proposed, that any person having been tried, convicted and punished for a blasphemous or seditious libel, should on conviction of a second offence, be liable, at the discretion of the court, to fine,

[ocr errors]

or

imprisonment, banishment, transportation. It was also proposed, that in cases of a second conviction, a power should be given to seize the copies of the libel in possession of the publisher; the copies so seized to be preserved until it should be seen, whether an arrest of judgment should be moved, and then to be returned to the publisher, if the judgment of the court should be in his favour.

Another measure connected with this subject would be proposed in another place, but he might mention it here, in order to afford a connected view of the measures which ministers had felt it their duty to recommend. It was to be proposed, that all publications, consisting of less than a given number of sheets, should be subjected to a duty equal to that paid by newspapers. This might be said to be breaking in on the principle before laid down, but it would be for their lordships to consider whether this infringement were not indispensable to check the progress of blasphemy and sedition.

Another provision of this bill would be, that persons putting forth a publication of this kind, would be required to enter into recognizances or give security for the payment of any penalties which might be inflicted on them.

He should now state the provisions by which it was proposed to obviate the danger of tumultuous and seditious meetings. It was not intended to interfere with the right of the subject, to petition the Prince Regent, or parliament, or to meet for the discussion of any griev

ance

ance under which the people might conceive they were laboring. Nothing would be introduced into the bill that might tend to impede, or interrupt meetings regularly called by a sheriff, borough-reeve, or other magistrate; but it would be proposed to enact, that any parties wishing to meet for consideration of subjects connected with church or state, should notify their intention by a requisition signed by seven householders, and that it should be illegal for any person not usually inhabiting the place where it was called, to attend it. It was proposed to give the magistrates the power, with some limitations, of appointing the place and time of meeting.

In consequence of the alarming facts which had been laid before the House, respecting the preparations for employing illegal force, it was proposed to prohibit military training except under the authority of a magistrate, or lord lieutenant of the county.

Papers on the table left no doubt of the danger to be apprehended from the possession of arms by the disaffected; and it had been deemed necessary to give magistrates in the disaffected districts, on evidence affording well-grounded suspicion of arms being collected for illegal pur poses, the power of seizing them. The power was also to be given them of apprehending and detaining persons found carrying arms for such purpose; and of seizing such arms; an appeal to the quarter sessions being how ever allowed to the persons so detained.

These were in outline the
VOL. LXI.

whole of the measures to be submitted to parliament.

Earl Grey objected to the early day fixed for the second reading of these bills; he also objected to the bills themselves, as forming a system of force, terror and coercion which would aggravate the distrust entertained of parliament by the people, and instead of saving produce ruin to the country. Feeling as he did on these subjects, and looking with dismay on the proposed system of government, he could not but take the earliest opportunity of expressing his general sentiments on these measures;-measures which comprehended restraints on public meetings, and on the freedom of the press, and empower magistrates to deprive the subject of arms which he might have for his own defence. The justification of such restraints rested on the papers which had been presented to the House. Now, he was willing to allow that these papers, incomplete as he maintained them to be, and requiring many additions and explanations, did prove a considerable extent of danger; but a danger arising from the distress of the people-a distress amounting to absolute hunger, and admitted by the magistrates themselves, in their first accounts, as the cause of the danger. That there were persons who took advantage of this distress to inflame the discontents of the sufferers, he was willing to allow; but, there was no evidence either in the papers on the table, or in the general state of the country, to convince him that any conspiracy against law and order had [K]

been

been formed, or that the public tranquillity was extensively thrcatened. The noble lord had spoken of conciliation, but his notions of it were rather rigid. He had declared that he would subdue first before he would concede. But if there were demands which the people had a right to make, and which, from the state of the country, it was proper to grant, why resist concession? He was prepared to admit that the people had a right to an indulgent attention to their grievances; that there existed abuses in the government, and defects in the construction of parliament, which ought to be taken into consideration, and that a yielding to the prayers of the nation in this respect might allay discontent, without being a dangerous concession. Such measures of conciliation would do more to bring back the country to peace and tranquillity than the present bills, and give it more strength and durable security than any system of restraints, or laws of severity and coercion.

After a general defence of the principle of the bills and of the conduct of government from the Earl of Liverpool, and a few words of objection from Lord Erskine, early days were fixed for the second reading of the training and search for arms, and the press restraint bills.

On the same day, in the House of Commons, Lord Castlereagh entered into a general exposition of the bills laid before the House of Lords by viscount Sidmouth.

Mr. Tierney then rose, and after a variety of strictures on the bills proposed, and conduct

of the administration in not enforcing the laws already existing against the licentiousness of the press, as if they desired that its unchecked excess should afford a pretext for measures like the present, he thus concluded: He had come down to the House with a sincere inclination to listen impartially to what the noble lord might suggest, and rather disposed to concur than to oppose; but he had then no notion of the extent of the demand which would be made: he might have been willing to concede something if a necessity had been shown, but nothing would satisfy the noble lord but an attack upon the very vital principles of the British constitution. Are we (continued Mr. Tierney) to live in entirely new times? Are we now to hold up to the world, that the constitution which we have hitherto venerated for its antiquity, and loved for the blessings it has conferred, is of no value? Formerly, when foreigners have asked in what way we became possessed of such and such institutions that have attracted their admiration, we could reply, that we were indebted for them to the right which the people of England enjoyed of thinking and speaking freely. But now another lesson is taught by the noble lord, who would convince us, that what has been the salvation of our liberties is the destruction of our happiness-that what we and our forefathers have believed, is false and foolish; and that to preserve freedom and property, the constitution must undergo a change, which, in my conscience, I believe it cannot survive. I say

fairly and openly, that I suspect the administration from which these measures emanate that they are only the advanced guard of the array of bills which they are to direct against the constitution. I see on the part of the government an evident determination to resort to nothing but force: they think of nothing else, they dream of nothing else; they will try no means of conciliation, they will make no attempt to pacify and reconcile: force force-force, and nothing but force! that is their cry, and it has been the same for years: one measure of coercion has been, and will be, followed up by another, and the result will justify what I assert, that 10,000 will not answer their purpose; one measure of violence must succeed another, and what they gain by force they must retain by the same detestable means. The people will never rest until they are allowed to live under laws equally administered; until their honest industry will procure them the means of maintaining their families, and until they shall again enjoy the blessings of that constitution which their ancestors intended they should partake. If not, discontent will increase to disaffection, and distress will produce discontent, notwithstanding the bold assertions of the noble lord, that the nation is prosperous, and has no wants but those which arise out of the present condition of America. If the noble lord had confined himself to the grant of 10,000 men, I should have deemed it a strong measure in a time of profound peace. Is any evidence offered

that a body of the military has been overpowered, or even that it has not always been sufficient for the dispersion of any meeting? But if the country gives him more troops to put down new meetings, surely it is somewhat hard that he should also ask it for new laws, that are to prevent the possibility of new meetings. If the noble lord thinks that the new laws will be effectual, where is the occasion for the 10,000 men? My sincere belief is, that he will want many more than 10,000 men, and what a melancholy prospect does this hold out to the country. It may be said that I use violent language. I admit it; and all I can say in answer is, that I do not utter a single syllable that I do not, on my honour, believe. (Cheers). I am an alarmist. I feel alarm, because I am compelled to trust to men who will rely on nothing against the people but brute force. I am alarmed, because an attempt is to be made, under false pretences, to destroy all that is valuable in the consti tution, unless it be defended by the free spirit of a yet free nation. Therefore it is that I indulge a hope, that while the right of meeting remains, the people will meet and will express their opinions with such effect, that the threats and measures of coercion may be abandoned. I trust that the country will thoroughly understand the nature of these novel laws, that the real objects of government will be evident, and that those objects by the public voice will be for ever defeated. If the country abstains from this course, [K 2]

and

« ZurückWeiter »