parties into which the kingdom was divided, were desirous that such a favourable law should pass. The fact was, that every age had its own dangers, and that every age must meet them with its own remedy. Whatever might be the dangers in the time of William, they were very different from those at present existing. At that period, the contest related to a sovereign with a disputed title to the throne; at present, the contest was of a very different character and principle. But he had already stated to their lordships in what he considered the present danger to exist; and he left it to them to determine whether the measure under their consideration was not indispensable to avert it. In the course of the debate much had been said of the way in which it was pro. bable the bill would operate on juries. He assured the House that he was always disposed to speak with great caution and reserve and respect, of the decisions of juries; at the same time, he could not admit that, of the decisions of the juries, which he was not prepared to admit, of the decisions of their lordships, or of the House of Commons. He could not admit that they were infallible: twelve men, however honest, might possibly be influenced by prejudice or passion; and he could not admit, that if in the fair estimate of an honourable man's mind, he came to a decision different from that of a jury, that he was precluded from saying so. He would not enter into the circumstances of the acquittal which had that night been alluded to: he would not pronounce it to be right or wrong. But this he would say that, whether right or wrong, it materially aggravated the existing evil. That evil, however, would not have been so great as it proved to be, had it not been followed up by subscriptions, to which, he was sorry to say, some very respectable persons were induced (by motives which he could not pretend to fathom) to contribute. To him this appeared to be a seriously unwarrantable transaction.-To revert, however, to the subject immediately before their lordships. His opinion was, that if the proposed bill was adopted by the legislature, it would have a great effect not in preventing people from writing or publishing libels for a much severer punishment than that which the bill contemplated, would not have that effect-but in making persons feel that a second offence might subject them to a

severe punishment, and by rendering them consequently cautious.-When noble lords talked of their apprehension of arbitrary power, they should consider how much of late years the constituted authorities of the country had lost in respect. By some this had been attributed to what was called the corruption of the House of Commons. But could those who said so seriously consider such a cause as adequate to the production of such an effect? Let their lordships look at the bench of justice. All parties united in admiration of the conduct of the judges. From the accession of the present family to the throne, the judges, with perhaps not a single exception, had all proved themselves to be men of honourable and independent minds. So they were universally held to be at present. But did not their lordships observe the anti-judicial spirit that prevailed?. Did they not observe, not only in the person brought before the highest tribunals for the most dangerous crimes, but in the audience, a special defiance of the jurisdiction of the country? Was that to be ascribed to the corruption of the House of Commons? Had that its root in the misconduct of ministers? Did it even proceed from compassion to the individual, in whose conduct no circumstance of aggravation was wanting? Who could observe that species of defiance of law and authority, and not say, that over that law and that authority it was the duty of parliament to throw a shield? Under all these circumstances, he was persuaded that, although discretion should be avoided if unnecessary, it was in the case of such a serious offence as that in question, but fair, just, equitable and expedient to vest a certain discretion in the courts of jus tice ;-a discretion which there could be no apprehension would be abused; and which might enable those courts, in particular instances, to adopt proceedings eminently conducive to the public good.

The Earl of Carnarvon said, that the whole system of measures now proposed to parliament, appeared to him uncalled for and unjustifiable in the present state of their lordships information. The ministers of the Crown had told the House, that distress was the cause of the present danger, and that they expected that that distress would be merely temporary; but, they were to meet that temporary danger and distress, by permanent restrictions upon liberty. His objection to them was, that the ministers of the Crown did not.

meet the difficulties of the country with appropriate remedies. When they called for new powers, they ought to have shown that they required them to answer the emergency. If they had dreaded to disclose their information, they might have said so, and called for the temporary confidence of parliament. If they had come down to that House, and stated upon their honour, that they had information which made measures of safety necessary, without being able fully to disclose that information, he would have been the first to grant them those powers; but he would not agree to alter permanently the constitution of the country on such facts and allegations as appeared in the papers on the table. To the present bill, as a permanent measure, he could not give his sanction, and he would move in the committee, that it be restricted to a short period. The law of libel was indefinite; any thing might be considered a seditious libel which included a censure, not legal, on the character and conduct of the servants of the Crown; and every such censure was not legal, except when uttered in his place by a member of either House. A letter put into the post-office, reflecting upon the conduct of ministers, and given up to the public prosecutor, might be considered a seditious libel; and, on a second conviction for a similar letter, the author would render himself liable to transportation. Was this a punishment suitable to such an offence or such an offender? Did not this law, therefore, destroy a great portion of our liberties, and, if rendered permanent, would their lordships not be accused of delivering the constitution impaired to their posterity? Nay, even a speech spoken in parliament, and reported to the world, might be construed into a libel, and the publisher, on conviction for a second offence, might be transported to Botany Bay. Would not this stop all discussion on the conduct of government, and prevent any strictures on the characters or measures of ministers, both in and out of parliament? For several years government had allowed seditious and blasphemous libels to pass with impunity. They had not put in force the existing law against them; and, having been guilty of this remissness, they suddenly called upon parliament to furnish the means of punishing libels with tenfold severity. He must vote against the present bill, although he was not, in principle, opposed to all the measures that

had been introduced, some of which, at least, if enacted for a time, might be very expedient. But, affecting, as this measure did, that most valuable privilege, the liberty of the press, it should meet with his decided opposition.

The Earl of Blessington said, that before ministers visited seditious libels with such severity, they should define what seditious libels were. A noble lord had said, that any person who gave an opinion against the conduct of ministers, lent his weight to the disaffected. A peer of parliament, according to this doctrine, in discharging his duty, and fairly stating his sentiments, might, by the present bill, render himself liable to transportation. Until, therefore, he heard that it was not intended to be a permanent measure, it must have his decided opposition; and, until he heard from the noble secretary of state propositions for conciliating the people as well as coercing them, he must oppose all the measures that had been recommended by government. Anxious as he was to see the Prince Regent enthroned, as he deserved to be, in the hearts of the subject, he must again and again vote for an inquiry into the state of the country; in the hope, that at last, parliament would show the country, not only that they would protect the just rights of his majesty's peaceable subjects, but that by soothing measures (which alone ought, in his opinion, to be adopted) they would silence the general expression of discontent.

The Duke of Sussex begged to be allowed to make a few observations, in consequence of what had fallen from a noble earl on the subject of the education of the lower orders of society. He was quite sure that the noble earl did not mean any personal imputation. But, being so much concerned as he was with others, in the superintendence of the education of the poor, he felt himself called upon to defend the system of schools which had been assailed-namely, the Lancasterian system. It was a system founded on the strictest principle of religion and morality. He could vouch for one particular fact, namely, that although children of different sects were admitted into the Lancasterian schools, every Monday morning they were examined to ascertain whether or not they had been to some place of worship or other; and when it was found that that had been neglected three times, the child was dis

Earl Grey rose to express his sentiments upon the bill. He objected to it not only as it stood part of an obnoxious system, but as being in itself uncalled for and dangerous. It conferred upon the magistrate a power of breaking open houses by night or by day-a power which was liable to great abuse, and which might be dangerous in the execution of the means employed to carry it into effect, while it would be perfectly inefficient for the purpose for which it was intended. He objected to it likewise in principle. It was a principle of the law of England, asserted and declared in the Bill of Rights, that every man was entitled to the possession of his arms, not only for defence against the assassin or the midnight robber, but to enforce his constitutional right of resistance to oppression, if deprived of the benefit of the laws. He was anxious to express this constitutional view, as that right had been asserted and recognized at the period of the Revolution, and had been too much lost sight of since. He could not, therefore, surrender it, without the most urgent necessity; and he saw no grounds of necessity established. It had, indeed, been said, that arms had been provided for the purposes of insurrection and rebellion; but the papers on the table, which contained the only information on which he could proceed, stated nothing precise or satisfactory on the subject. Where any thing specific was stated, he found that it related to a few pikes, which had been fabricated at the desire of the persons who gave the information. On such a ground he could not surrender an essential right of Englishmen. But the scanty statements contained in the papers had been attempted to be completed by the accounts that were heard in the House. Arms, to an extraordinary extent, were said to be made and distributed in the part of the country with which he was connected; and a near and dear relative of his, it was added, had been obliged to leave his home from the fear of an armed insurrection, and to retire with his family to Newcastle, as a place of safety. That his relative had left his home he could not deny; whether from a misconceived alarm, would best appear from what he had to state. His relative had since written him a letter in which he said that the alarm was false; that the reports of the state of the country were exaggerated; but that he did

:

not feel himself justified in neglecting to take the step that he had taken from affection to his family, whose wishes he was obliged to consult. That the principles of reform were widely diffused in that country, he could not deny that the Radical Reformers were numerous, he believed; that their attempts to carry Radical Reform into execution would be zealous, he likewise believed; and that they had divided themselves, as had been represented, into different sections, for the purpose of receiving information and communicating with each other, was also true. The numbers, were differently stated; but that they were very numerous, was a fact from which he could not withhold his belief. Admitting all this, however, he was prepared to say that much exaggeration had prevailed on the subject. The House had been told that a meeting took place at Newcastle, which was attended by 30,000 people; but the whole population of the place did not consist of more than 28,000. Allowing for the numbers that came from Shields and other places, he had been informed, that not more than 7,000 or 8,000 attended the meeting, and that they dispersed without the least disturbance. The noble duke (of Northumberland) had spoken much about arms the other day. Now with respect to arms, it ought to be recollected, that great numbers of people in the neighbourhood of Newcastle, possessed arms, without any reference to the purposes of insurrection; that many of them had received them during the war, and had retained them afterwards. But that any arms had been made for present purposes he was enabled to deny. With respect to the number of men prepared for insurrection, it had been said by a noble duke, that 100,000 were ready to rise in arms between the Weir and the Tyne; but the whole population of Northumberland and Durham would not furnish 100,000 adult males. This was a proof of the great exaggerations that had gone abroad. He did not wish to deceive their lordships; he believed that reform was demanded by a great body of the people not by the poor and the distressed alone, but by the middle classes of society, possessed of competence, disposed to in dustry, and capable of discussing public measures. He would entreat their lordships, therefore, to consider, whether measures similar to the present were likely

to operate upon them, and to reconcile them to the want of that reform, of the necessity of which they might consider those measures the best proof. He must pause before he gave his assent to a statement which said, that by being Radical Reformers, or sharing doctrines held by the late duke of Richmond, they necessarily aimed at the subversion of society, and a division of property. He had heard, indeed, that the duke of Northumberland's tenants, whom he assembled at Alnwick for the defence of the county, had, in the wantonness of festivity, talked of the division of his property. He only stated this to show how reports might spread; and if this one was unfounded, it was likely that many others on the opposite side were as unfounded. The bill before the House, he was convinced, would be entirely nugatory and inefficient, while its enforcement must be very vexatious. Its provisions had been many days before the public already; it would still be some days before that House, some days in the other House, and some days might intervene before it received the royal assent. Would the persons who possessed arms which it would authorize the magistrates to seize, be such idiots as not previously to have disposed of them? With regard to them, therefore, it would be inefficient; with regard to others it would be oppressive and irritating. He would appeal to those who knew Ireland, whether the irritation of that country was, not, at the commencement of the rebellion, more fomented by the search for arms than by any other measure.

The Earl of Strathmore was unwilling to trespass upon the attention of their lordships, but he felt it necessary to say a few words in answer to the ingenious arguments used by the noble earl who had just sat down. He had often given that noble earl his due tribute of praise and admiration for the great abilities which he had displayed on various occasions, but he had lived long enough to know, that there was no argument like matter of fact. The noble earl had stated that his brother had left his abode through a false alarm, but that he had again returned to it. He could assure their lordships that there was more cause for such a removal at present in that part of the country, than at any previous period. He had that morning received letters from two magistrates of the county of

Durham, which contained alarming accounts of the state of the country. Here the noble lord read the letters. The first stated, that in consequence of the enclosed letter from colonel French, the writer felt it his duty to apprise his lordship, as lord lieutenant of the county, that the military force was to be held in readiness to be called out, and that his lordship's cavalry were to form part of that force." These letters were signed Abel Askew and J. Collison, and dated December 3rd 1819. It was hardly necessary after this, to say that simultaneous meetings were to be apprehended, and that the town was not in danger. Another letter was read by the noble lord, in which the magistrates were directed to be in readiness, and to keep the yeomanry ready to act on the shortest notice. If this was not sufficient to open the eyes of their lordships to the danger which threatened the country, he knew not what was. The noble earl had stated, that the object of these people was only a reform of parliament; now he, from the best information he could receive, was convinced that their object was nothing short of open rebellion. He had reason to suppose that a great portion of the inhabitants of that and other districts were ripe for the purpose. He was a good deal interested in that part of the country, and had the earliest and best information of what was passing. In one letter he was informed, that the principal object of the reformers was plunder-that out of 15,000 persons, 14,500 might be said to have no other object than plunder and the division of property. The noble lord mentioned the names of Mackenzie and Marshal, as two persons who were venders of seditious publications. He was aware that in the districts alluded to, as well as in several others, arms were procured to an alarming extent, not, as was stated, for the purpose of poaching, but for the furtherance of far more dangerous objects. He had this information from a source, which if the noble earl knew, he could not doubt; but he could not mention that source, as, by doing so, he should expose an innocent individual to assassination. He hoped that no time would be lost in passing this bill through the House, as upon it, and the other measures to be introduced, depended the safety of the country. An insurrection was to be dreaded, and if it took place, God knew what would be the consequence! With