For these reasons

he would move an Amendment, to leave out all but the first word of the motion, and in its place to substitute

"That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, humbly to desire his Majesty that he will be graciously pleased to give directions to his attorney-general to prosecute John Reeves, esq. as the author or publisher of a printed pamphlet, intituled, "Thoughts on the English Government, &c." and also the Printer thereof, in order that they, or he, may be brought to condign punishment for the

regular prosecution. If the present mo-clared it did contain. clared it did contain. The publication tion passed, it could not stop there: was an attack upon the very existence of something farther must necessarily be parliament, and he regarded it as part of done and justice and consistency de- a system which had been long acted upon manded that they should send it to a jury, by Mr. Reeves and his colleagues all over who would give a fair and impartial ver. the country. He was therefore of opinion, dict on the subject. that such an attack was only cognizable by parliament. A warm panegyric had been pronounced upon the associations. Did the right hon. gentleman approve of the mode in which the Crown and Anchor association had proceeded? Did he approve of the idea of a fictitious secretary, or of anonymous information being encouraged? Did he not think that such a proceeding would be a disgrace even to a Venetian government? By the Crown and Anchor association, pamphlets had been circulated, in order to establish the Jaco. bin principle of affiliated societies, at the very time when the society were so warmly contending against all principles of that description. His hon. friend had not said, that he would move for an address to his majesty to remove Mr. Reeves from any place of trust. Such a motion he trusted would be unnecessary; because he hoped there was virtue enough in the executive government not to employ such a man. Mr. Reeves was a magistrate, and might act under the last of the two bills that had been past. To the objection that had been adduced against the House taking judicial cognizance of the libel, he should reply by asking whether the House, previous to the recent state trials, had not, by their secret committee, anteceded and almost superseded the functions of a grand jury? He should therefore vote for the motion of his hon. friend.

same.'

Lord Sheffield said, he should think it a loss of time, to notice the extraordinary episodes, in the speech of the hon. gentleman who began the debate; but he could not refrain from alluding to the shameful proposition, of condemning a man before he had been proved guilty. It had been said, that this House was the most proper place to pass sentence upon the author of the pamphlet: he thought it was the worst, and he was apprehensive his reasons for expressing that opinion would not flatter either side of the House. He observed that one set of men, instead of prosecuting a libel against the constitution, meant to persecute a man whom they considered as having counteracted their views; and, on the other side, he observed a disposition to shrink from and withhold the common protection due to a man, whom it was evidently intended to oppress, although they did not consider him as guilty. His great anxiety that the House should preserve the character which became them, obliged him to wish the pamphlet to be sent to a fair trial, and that the prosecution should be carried on by the attorney-general, in a court where the question would be decided by evidence on oath.

Mr. Jekyll said, he differed entirely from Mr. Dundas in his ideas of the propriety of sending the case to a court of law; because, although he thought as highly of that tribunal as any man, yet he must say that House ought to take care of its own privileges. The right hon. secretary had argued as if the pamphlet did not contain that which the House had de

Mr. Sylvester Douglas expressed his surprise, that the learned gentleman who had just spoken, had imputed to his right hon. friend an intention of combating the condemnation passed by the House on the publication in question, under the pretext that he had been absent on other duty when that resolution was come to. He said, it was very unlike that gentleman's known character, to resort to pretexts and subterfuges; but, in the present instance, the very amendment he had proposed, was necessarily founded on the adoption and assumance of the former resolution. He agreed with his learned friend, that the hon. mover had opened the debate in a very ample style. He had, indeed, gone into a very wide field, having introduced a great deal of matter totally foreign to the business before the

said, he should certainly vote for the amendment, because he thought a trial

House. Although this motion arose out of the second report of the committee of which the hon. gentleman had been chair-before a jury would have the double adman, he had wisely abstained from any kind of remark, to show how the new evidence at all bore upon, or strengthened the case, as to the conclusion the committee had drawn from the former proof, that Mr. Reeves was, or had acted, as the author of the publication in question. He had done so wisely, because there was not a possibility of maintaining that there was any new proof of that kind, or any thing more, in the second report, than some repetition of the former matter, and a great deal of irrelevant inquiry and examination, concerning the fictitious existence of a nominal secretary to the Crown and Anchor Association. The hon. gen. tleman had read a variety of detached sentences and passages from two octavo volumes, which he stated to be the printed proceedings of that association, of which Mr. Reeves was chairman; and he had wished the House, in the first place, to treat Mr. Reeves as responsible for all those passages; and, in the next place, on the sudden, without any opportunity of perusing the context, to condemn those passages, as dangerous libels on the constitution. He wondered much, that that hon. gentleman should have taken this line of argument. Some time ago, when a noble lord (Mornington), had, in a debate on one of the two bills which had lately passed, cited some extracts from the printed proceedings of the Corresponding Society, the hon. gentleman had censured what he called such an undue use of mutilated scraps and quotations. But the noble lord had made those quotations from publications easily accessible, of no great size, and while the House was acting in its deliberative capacity. The hon. gentleman's conduct this evening was very different. He pressed his citations on the House, acting in its judicial character, and about to come to an immediate sentence, when there could be no opportunity of comparing them with their. voluminous context. But supposing it were admitted, that Mr. Reeves could be made responsible for those passages, and that they were as reprehensible as the hon. gentleman contended, still it was contrary to the wise and generous policy of this country, to suffer the production of evidence, that a person had been guilty of former and other crimes, when he was under ac cusation on some distinct charge. [VOL. XXXII.]

He

vantage of furnishing by far, the most satisfactory means of investigating the truth of the charge, and of enabling the person accused to avail himself of the regular modes of defence practised in trials by jury. Among other favourable circumstances, the defendant, if that course should be taken, might resort to the legal assistance of different learned members of that House; an advantage he must forego if farther proceeded against in the House itself. In that last case, for example, he could not employ as his counsel, an hon. and learned member (Mr. Erskine) who, besides his great experience and acknowledged talents and eloquence, seemed to take particular pleasure, as he had met with particular success, in the defence of clients charged with that sort of offence which was the subject of the present discussion. He thought it rather strange, that the gentlemen who had been loudest in their denunciation of this libel, were contending against a mode of prosecution, which would inflict a much greater and more adequate punishment on the person charged, if the charge should be made out, than what they desired the House to pronounce; and from which nothing could protect him but the establishment of his innocence, by the verdict of a jury. Was it not extraordinary, that on this occasion, those should object to the appeal proposed from the opinion of this House to the decisions of a jury, who, in the case of the acquittals last year, had been so vehement in their applause of a similar appeal?-With regard to the libel itself, he should not enter at any length into the consideration of the nature and enormity of the guilt imputed to it. When it was first brought before the House, he had thought the passage specially complained of highly unconstitutional, and deserving, in a particular measure, the animadversion and censure of the House. He could not, indeed, agree to the sentiment which had fallen from two learned friends of his, that the passage was of such a nature as to make it quite impossible that its context should show it to be innocent, or even less reprehensible than it appeared when taken by itself. He could never subscribe to an opinion which seemed to him so monstrous, namely, that there could exist any set of words whatever, forming only part of an entire discourse, spoken or [2X]

guilty; and how would that verdict be construed by different parties? One side would contend that the jury had acquitted the defendant, because there was not sufficient evidence to convict him of being the author or publisher; and the other side would argue, that he was acquitted because the jury were of opinion the pamphlet did not contain any libellous or seditious matter. He thought such a dispute would not be very much for the honour of the House, and therefore he should vote for the original motion.

House should not content themselves with a vote of censure, but should make the pamphlet undergo, as it were, the ignominious punishment of burning. With regard to precedents, he contended that they were, with a very few exceptions, in favour of the original motion. Early in the present reign, a pamphlet, called "Droit le Roi," had been complained of, censured, and burnt. At the commencement of the American war, another pamphlet, called "The Crisis," had also been burnt. Why, then, should it now Mr. Jenkinson said, that the report of be for the honour of the House to show the committee contained some insinua-such tenderness for the doctrine contained tions against a noble lord nearly con- in this pamphlet, as to exempt it from nected wish him (lord Hawkesbury); the punishment which had been inflicted and some observations which had fallen on similar doctrines? An insinuation had from different gentlemen of a similar ten-gone forth that there was a wish to opdency, induced him to rise for the purpose press Mr. Reeves, and a noble lord had of declaring, that the noble lord alluded stated that that gentleman was to be perto did not know of this book until it was secuted because he had counteracted the made a matter of public discussion, and views of gentlemen on his side of the that no copy whatever had been sent to House. Now he would fairly own, that his office. With respect to the situation Mr. Reeves had counteracted his views. which Mr. Reeves held under that noble His views had been to put an end to all lord, it was one which he had held for ten religious differences. Mr. Reeves's associyears; and he could assert, that that noble ation, however, had tried to light up the lord was fully satisfied with the punctua- flame of religious discord all over the lity and fidelity with which he had per- kingdom. His own object had always formed the duties of his office. been to preserve the balance between all the parts of the government. Mr. Reeves, however, by the circulation of Mr. Soame Jenyns's doctrines, and other pamphlets, had tried to destroy that balance. was, therefore, not ashamed to say that Mr. Reeves had counteracted his views. He had mentioned Mr. Soame Jenyns's pamphlet, he had read it when it first came out; he thought it ingenious and innocent. But though Mr. Jenyns wrote it innocently, did Mr. Reeves circulate it innocently and this was the material difference.

Sir W. Young thought the ends of public justice would be fully answered, if the author were called to the bar of the House, and reprimanded by the Speaker. The sentiments of the House would then go forth into the kingdom, and it would be universally known that they equally abhorred attacks upon every part of the constitution.

Mr. Fox said, that with respect to the danger to be apprehended from the pamphlet, he could not allow that the danger of an arbitrary government being established was wholly chimerical, though he was ready to allow that the recent feeling which had been excited by the two bills had, in a considerable degree, diminished his apprehensions of such an event. In a mixed government like this, however, all publications were dangerous which tended to give to one of the parts of that government too great an ascendancy over the rest. It might be asked, why, if no prosecution were wished, all the facts had been stated? For this reason-to convince the House of the impropriety of the pamphlet. What was it that he desired? It was this, that as a pamphlet such as this had been brought before the House, the

He

Arguments had been used to show that the House, if they adopted the motion, would at the same time be judge and jury. Was it not in the nature of things that it must be so? And in a case which related to its own privileges, how could it be otherwise? Could any of the courts below vindicate their privileges, in any other manner than by acting both as judge and jury? If he were asked, whether he would stop here, his reply would be, that he had no objection. He had no objection also to sending for Mr. Reeves to the bar. the bar he might make his defence, and

* See Vol. 15, p. 1418.

At