political hostility, be exposed to the most dreadful consequences? Would not, in fact, such a measure be made the instrument of vengeance, instead of power? There was another class of persons equally exposed to punishment; not merely the writer, the man of ability and the man of education, but the poor vender of newspapers, who awoke them in the morning with the sound of his horn, and was alike indifferent to what he sold, whether the loyal address of a university, or the contemptible discussions of a radical meeting. Knowing nothing of the contents of the publication, and perhaps incapable of judging of those contents if he did know them, he, too, was subject to the consequences of this bill; at least to the discretion of his majesty's judges! His lordship proceeded to argue, that during quiet times this bill was not sufficient to suppress the crime, and that in times of deep animosity it was likely to furnish a weapon of all powerful persecution, and to turn the sword of justice into the dagger of the

assassin.

Earl Grey followed on the same side in an able speech; the Earl of Liverpool replied. The Earls of Carnarvon and Blessington, and his royal highness the Duke of Sussex declared their opposition to the bill; the last taking the opportunity to vindicate the Lancasterian system of education from attack, by asserting that the practice of teaching under it was founded on the strictest principles of religion and morals. The bill was then read without a division. The amendments afterwards proposed were all nega

tived, but the opponents of the bill recorded their sentiments in the following Protests:

Protest against the Bill for punishing Libel by Transportation. Because we believe that by a seasonable exertion of the laws, as they at present exist, the press cannot be abused to any bad purpose, without incurring a suitable punishment.

Because any extension of the power of punishment now vested in the courts of law with respect to cases of libel, appears to us, therefore, to be unnecessary.

Because the offence of publishing a libel is, more than any other that is known to our law, undefined and uncertain. Publications which at one time may be considered innocent and even laudable, may at another, according to circumstances, and the different views of public ac cusers, of judges and of juries, be thought deserving of punishment; and thus the author and publisher of any writing dictated by the purest intentions, on a matter of public interest, without any example to warn, any definition to instruct, or any authority to guide him, may expose himself to the penalty of being " banished from the united kingdom and all other parts of his majesty's dominions, for such term as the court in which such conviction shall take place shall order, or be transported to such place as shall be appointed by his majesty for the transportation of offenders, for any term not exceeding seven years."

Because the fear of being subjected to the punishment of a [12]

common

common felon, thus suspended over the head of any person who may have been once convicted of publishing a libel, to which mere inadvertence may subject him, and against which no degree of caution can afford him complete security, must necessarily deter him from the fearless exercise of the right, which has hitherto been the proud prerogative of Englishmen, of freely discussing public measures and endeavouring to warn his countrymen against the dangerous encroachments of power.

Because this bill, therefore, so inconsistent with the policy of our law and with the practice of our ancestors, appears to us to be a most dangerous invasion of the just freedom of the press, and to be subversive, in one of their main defences, of the rights and liberties which were secured to us by progressive struggles through a long succession of ages, and at length asserted, declared, and, as we had fondly hoped, firmly established for ever by the Revolution of 1688.

(Signed) GREY,

1

AUG. FREDERICK, ERSKINE,

PROTESTS.

House of Lords, Thursday, Dec. 9.

Seditious Libel Bill.-It was moved to insert after the words "seditious libels" the following words:" with intent to excite his majesty's subjects to subvert by violence the government by law established."

It was resolved in the negative.

Dissentient,-1st, Because the crime of publishing unlawful libels has, according to the practice of English law, embraced various offences, differing in their nature as well as in their degrees of criminality from the wilful and predetermined guilt of the actual writer and publisher, to the negligence, and sometimes even to the inevitable ignorance of the party who has been deemed guilty by construction, in respect of his pecuniary interest in the publication, or his mere civil relation to the actual publisher; and it therefore seems just and necessary, that when a discretionary punishment of increased severity is to be enacted, it should be confined to that species of libel which, both in s natural tendency and in the motive of the publisher, exhibits the highest degree of malignity.

2dly, Because the most effectual, if not the only mode of accomplishing this object is, to introduce into the statute, and consequently into the indictments or informations proceeding upon it, a precise definition of the crime which it is intended to prevent, by the extension and alteration of the punishment.

By such means alone can ju

ries, in the first instance, be apprised of the particular character of the offence imputed to the defendant, or can the judge have a certain rule to distinguish the cases in which his discretionary power is to be exercised.

3dly, Because without such exact definition as has been rejected, it is possible that judges as well as juries may, upon different occasions, differ very wide ly as to the meaning of the word "seditious," and thereby introduce into the administration of a penal law an uncertainty, which is at all times an evil, but which is particularly mischievous when the law is very severe.

(Signed) VASSALL HOLLAND,

ERSKINE, LANSDOWNE, CARNARVON, KING,

Bedford,

JERSEY,

COWPER,

ROSSLYN,

MINTO,

LAUDERDALE, AUCKLAND, GROSVENOR, THANET.

It was afterwards moved to omit the word "banishment." It was resolved in the negative.

Dissentient,-1st, Because the introduction of banishment in the present bill seems to us a wanton and dangerous experiment. That punishment has been hitherto unknown to the law of England, and on the present occasion, there has been no proof shown of its necessity, nor due examina

tion had of its consequences. So material an innovation on a system of usages, statutes and maxims, established without reference to any such punishment, may, by analogies and inferences of law, affect the rights of the exiles and their descendants in a manner not foreseen by the authors of the bill, nor in the contemplation of the legislature that enacts it.

2dly, Because banishment, from its very nature a punishment of unequal severity in different cases, may be rendered doubly so by the favour or enmity of the sovereigns to whose dominions the exiles would most naturally resort.

We doubt the justice of subjecting an Englishman, even when convicted of a political offence against the rulers of his own country, to the capricious will or arbitrary laws of a foreign government; and we question the policy of teaching men of active spirits and turbulent designs to look to foreign favour for the mitigation of their lot, on the miscarriage of their enterprizes at home.

Observation of what is going on around us, reflection on what has taken place in past times, strengthen these considerations.

The present situation of Europe affords us no assurance that the power of one sovereign may not be rendered subservient to the vengeance of another; and the history of free states, modern as well as ancient, admonishes us, that nothing has a more direct tendency to introduce foreign influence and foreign interference in the internal affairs of a

country

state delinquents.

(Signed) VASSALL HOLLAND,
ERSKINE,
KING,
BEDFORD,

JERSEY,

ROSSLYN,

COWPER,

LAUDERDALE, THANET,

GROSVENOR.

House of Commons, Dec. 15.

Mr. J. Smith said, he held in his hand a petition from that respectable body of men the booksellers, against a proposed enactment, that persons convicted a second time of blasphemous or seditious libel might be banished for seven years. Many whose names were attached to this petition would, he doubted not, abandon their business should the measure be carried into effect.

Lord Castlereagh wished to apprise the House of his intention of proposing some alterations in the committee on the bill, which would perhaps meet the wishes of the petitioners. He was happy to state, that he did not see the necessity of pressing the liability to transportation. It appeared to him that simple banishment would be an adequate penalty on a second conviction for blasphemous or seditious libel. It certainly had been represented to him, that the punishment of transportation had hitherto been confined to felonious offences. He therefore proposed that it should be reserved for

and it would thus be substituted to the punishment of death.

The second reading of this bill produced some warm remonstrance from sir J. Mackintosh and other members, on the haste and inconsideration with which a bill enacting a new penalty for an undefined offence was urged upon the House; and a division took place, which gave the following result. For the immediate reading 190. Against it, 72; Majority 118.

In the committee on the bill Dec. 23rd, Mr. Bernal said, that of all the restrictive measures which had passed, or that were in progress to be passed, he considered this bill the most obnoxious and objectionable. Much had been said, in the course of debate, on the question whether in this country banishment was a novel punishment, or was already known to our laws. He, however, was prepared to maintain that banishment had never been applied by parliament as a punishment, unless by an ex post facto law.

The first notice we had of banishment was in cases of abjuration of the realm. In those days, if a felon took refuge in a church, he became protected against the law; and if he went before a magistrate, he was allowed to take the oath of abjuration, and to quit the realm. The laws which sanctioned abjuration and sanctuary refuge, were first checked in the time of Henry 8th, and were at last totally repealed in the reign of James 1st. In the time of Charles 2nd, when felonious offences were unusually prevalent

prevalent in Westmorland and Cumberland, persons convicted of them were ordered to be transported to the colonies in America. The act of the 36th of the present King was passed at a time when certain offences of an aggravated nature were committed against the state. This act, he would beg the honourable gentlemen opposite to remember, was not passed as a permanent measure, but was limited to three years. The noble lord should also bear in mind, that this banishment or transportation was not for life, or for a period at the discretion of the judge, but was fixed by the act to a period of seven years, and was applied only to high offences against the state. He would beg the law-officers of the crown to reflect on some of the consequences likely to result from this law, and to solve some difficulties to which it might give rise. Would they tell him, whether a person banished for life would not be ousted from his allegiance to the king? Would they explain whether the children of persons in such circumstances were to be considered as subjects of Great Britain? There was another question: at whose expense were these people to be banished? If they happened to be in flourishing circumstances, they might easily transport themselves; but, if poor, by whom were the means to be supplied? Again, should this country be in a belligerent situation, as it had been before, with all the world, whither was the banished person to go? It was true, the country was not at -present at war with any part of

the world; but the case he had put was a possible one, and the crown lawyers were bound to solve the difficulty before the House passed the bill.

Mr. Denman objected to several other clauses of the bill, especially to that which autho rized the search of private houses, for the discovery of libels which might be concealed there. He also pointed out the circumstance that this bill went to make liable

to the penalties those who printed, published, or "composed," seditious libels. So that if any one thought proper in his own closet, like Algernon Sidney, to write a tract upon the government which might be regarded as a libellous writing, that circumstance might give the parties acting under this bill, a right to search over his private desk to ascertain whether any libels might be found in it.

Sir J. Mackintosh suggested, as an amendment, the insertion of a definition of a seditious libel. Various other amendments were proposed by different members, all of which however were negatived, and the bill passed without further opposition.

Dec. 6. Lord Castlereagh, in moving the recommitment of the bill for the prevention of seditious meetings, particularised several alterations which he desired to make in that measure.

The purport of the first of these was the exemption of meetings not connected with the discussion of matters in church or state from the operation of the bill;-such as those held by particular trades on matters connected with their interests. With regard to that clause, which ren

dered