the highest importance that the inheritance should remain in our own British branch, and that the members of the royal family, who may be called to rule over these realms, should continue to be Englishmen in birth, in principles, and in feelings. I have now endeavoured to give a short, and I know it has been a most imperfect sketch, of the improved situation and prospect of the country;-that improvement has been greater than ever took place within the short space of one year, within the memory of man. But I must not forget to point the attention of the House to the treaties with Spain and Portugal for the abolition of the slave trade. They will be laid upon the table, and it will hereafter be remembered, to the honour of this country, that even in the midst of its own difficulties, distresses, and struggles, when fighting not only for the preservation of liberty, but of existence, that in such times, England was not deaf to the wrongs of other nations; that afterwards, when she had vindicated her own rights, and secured her own freedom, she shared with them part of her days of triumph; and not unmindful of the larger sphere of benefit she was enabled to convey, she attended to the interests of humanity, and the rights of human nature. But let the House please to consider what our situation would and must have been at the present moment if we had pursued a different line, and consented, under any circumstances, to submit to peace with Buonaparté; hollow, insecure, and treacherous peace!-never did policy receive so trimphant a justification as that which rejected all compromise, which flung away the scabbard in contending with an enemy whose ambition was without moderation, and whose conduct had never yet been guided by good faith. The country is now beginning to reap the fruits of that unrelaxing firmness in our councils, seconded by those magnanimous efforts in the country, that achieved not only our own security, but the total downfal and annihilation of the most tremendous tyranny that ever loured over the liberties of mankind. Now the greatest sceptic must cease to doubt that feeling, and the most timid to despond. I beseech you to look where the country would now have been, stripped of its high attributes, and endeavouring to preserve, what at best could only have been an armed peace, with war establishments, and war taxes, instead of being where Great Britain is, upon the pinnacle of glory, a model and example to nations, placed, as your firmness has placed you, on the topmost round of your ambition, attracting at once the admiration, and perhaps the envy of the world. Lord Althorp said :-Mr. Speaker; Extremely sorry should I be, when we are called upon to offer our condolence to the throne on the melancholy event which has lately afflicted the country, that any observation should escape from my lips, which might be in the least degree calculated to produce a difference of opinion as to the propriety of the Address moved, or disturb the unanimity which so happily pervades the House; nor shall I follow in detail the speeches of the hon. mover and seconder of that Address, farther than to protest against the inference they have attempted to draw, that the present improved condition of commerce, and the tranquil state of the country, are to be attributed to the measures pursued in the last session by his majesty's ministers. This is an opinion in which I, and probably many others, can by no means coincide; but as there will be many other opportunities for discussing this subject, I shall refrain from entering on it at present. I am, however, anxious to draw the attention of the House to a subject not forming any part of the topics embraced by the preceding speakers, yet necessarily connected with them, upon which I must premise it is not my intention to ground any specific motion. fact, this is the only occasion when we are privileged to allude to particular grievances on the part of individuals, or make a complaint on behalf of our constituents generally, without intending to move a resolution or motion in form upon the subject of such grievance or complaint. Such has been heretofore the practice upon the reading of his majesty's speech at the commencement of the session, and I shall avail myself of it to make a few observations upon the late prosecutions instituted against a person named Hone, for libels. It is a subject of great delicacy, because the professed cause of those prosecutions, the parodies on sacred subjects, no man can justify. Let none suppose that in calling the attention of the House to the subject, I do not feel the extreme impropriety and danger of such publications. I strongly In conviction upon the three several infor mations; and yet in that case, he would have been acquitted by the majority of the juries. This mode of proceeding cannot be considered candid or liberal. An unfair advantage appears to have been taken of the accused, by subjecting him to reiterated trials, and reiterated and painful exertions. Thus, although disposed to concede the magnitude of the evil likely to result from permitting the dissemination of such reprehensible publications, I cannot but think the hon. and learned gentleman's indiscretion has exposed the country to the chance of an evil of a much more alarming nature, had, during those trials, any circumstance occurred through his pertinacity which might have tended to lower and depreciate in the public mind and estimation the opinion hitherto entertained of the trial by jury.-Although I have felt it my duty thus early to express my sentiments upon this transaction, in conformity with the practice of the House, and the indulgence attending the opening of the session of parliament, by reading the speech delivered by the royal commission, I have been induced to do so merely with a view to perform a paramount duty, without feeling the least disposed to find fault with the substance of that Speech or the Address now moved for. In both these I heartily concur, and hope there will be an unanimous sentiment respect disapprove of them, yet in common with The Attorney General said, he had not intended to trouble the House on the question before them, but he might be excused if he made some observations on that part of the noble lord's speech which referred to the prosecutions that had recently taken place. He was not sure that he had rightly understood the objection made by the noble lord to the proceedings against Mr. Hone; he was not sure whether he objected to the prosecution of the parodies altogether, or whe ther his objection was founded on the circumstance of Mr. Hone having been tried three times. Those who thought the parodies were altogether innoxious, and such things as were proper to be circulated, must of course disapprove of the publisher of them being put three times on his trial; but in his humble opinion, if any one of them was a fit subject for prosecution, unless a marked distinction could be made between that and the others, he should have failed in his duty The Attorney General stated it to have been the subject of serious consideration with him, whether, after the first verdict, it would be proper to go on, or to abandon the prosecutions, and the result was, a conviction in his own mind, that by giving them up he should be guilty of a gross dereliction of his duty to the public. Unless he had felt satisfied, from what came out on the first trial, that the pub to the public if he had not prosecuted | in persevering in the prosecutions after the whole. He denied that there was the first verdict of acquittal. any thing litigious in the course that had been pursued, any thing of resentment towards the individual other than that which his supposed delinquency might be expected to inspire in the mind of a public officer, who held himself bound to proceed against the party so offending. In his humble judgment, if any single individual publication of the three proceeded against was a fit subject for prosecution, it was the duty of the attorney-lications were not what he had previously general to proceed against the whole. Was it because three separate and distinct libels,-three publications charged as libels at least, -had been sent forth by the same person, that two out of the three, on a verdict of acquittal being pronounced on the first trial, ought not to be prosecuted? This was a position which could not be maintained. If it were contended that some of them ought to have been prosecuted, and some not, then the question would arise as to which ought to have been proceeded against; but if all of them appeared to the prosecutor to be of the same nature, he would ask what inference would be drawn, if the public should see one or two selected from the number to be proceeded against, while those which remained passed unnoticed? The inference would be, that there were three parodies on the Church of England service: that the parody prosecuted was considered to be an improper one; but that the others, which it was not attempted to punish, were innocent, justifiable, and might be circulated at pleasure. He would appeal to the House if such would not be the inference that must be drawn from conduct like that which he had supposed. He admitted that because the man had been prosecuted for one libel of an injurious and mischievous tendency, and acquitted-he ought not on that account to be punished for a publication that was innocent in its nature; but in the case of Mr. Hone, it had certainly appeared to him, that the character of all the publications charged as libels was the same. He had understood the noble lord to complain of three prosecutions having been carried on against the same individual; if this were held to be be a matter of complaint, the noble lord must be of opinion that the publications were harmless. Lord Althorp said, what he objected to was the conduct of the attorney-general conceived them to be, and that he was mistaken in the informations which he had put upon the record, it was his bounden duty to proceed with the other two. And he now begged to say, that notwithstanding the verdict given by the jury-(he was always sorry to say any thing of verdicts given in a court of justice)-he had not been convinced, but far from it, that Mr. Hone was not guilty of a libel in the second publication, though he had been acquitted on the first. Though all the libels were of the same character, they were on different parts of the service of the Church of England, and were therefore fit subjects of distinct prosecutions. His mind had not been at all convinced, though by the law of England the jury had the right, and God forbid they should not have it,-of deciding on the guilt or innocence of the party accused;-yet still he had not been convinced that the publications in question were not what they had been charged to be. On such matters every man was entitled to exercise his own judgment. Had he felt that he had been in error when he first proceeded against themhad the first trial produced this conviction on his mind, he should have felt it his bounden duty to stay the proceedings; but in the absence of such conviction, ought he to have abstained from proceeding with the second prosecution, because the first had failed? Was such the principle on which the administration of the justice of the country ought to rest? If it could be shown by the noble lord that he had persevered in the prosecution from malice, or from a spirit of revenge, then he might make out a charge against him; but if this were not made out or stated, he would say that his conduct had not been improper, and that to have withdrawn from the prosecution of two of the parodies after a verdict of acquittal had been pronounced on the first, would have been taken for a confession on his part, that the first pro- | ceeding had been wrong. Would it have been right for him to have made such a confession, when he had no reason to believe or to imagine that such was indeed the fact? Whether or not such was the opinion of other persons, was quite another question; but with the impression he had had on his mind, it was his bounden duty, after the result of the first trial was known, to bring the second publication under the consideration of a jury. To have acted otherwise, he conceived then -he conceived now, and he thought he should ever remain in the same mind, would on his part have amounted to a dereliction of duty, and he might in such a case have been justly charged with weakness, and unbecoming apprehension for the issue, if he had not taken a verdict on each of the publications. Habeas Corpus. On that measure they had proceeded in some measure in the dark. The committees of that House, and of the other House (for the Lords' report had been communicated to them) had given their reason why they could not then disclose all the facts on which they had founded their judgment.-Some of the facts, they had said, would compromise the safety of individuals who had communicated them, and others might have an undue influence on judicial proceedings which were in progress. But events had since occurred which had thrown light upon the general assertions of those reports. He alluded to the proceedings at Manchester, at Derby, and in Scotland. All the evidence in all the transactions which had been made the subject of judicial inquiry, had tended to destroy the foundations on which they had in the last session proceeded. Not knowing whether any of the papers connected with those transactions would be laid before the House, he would now make a few observations on them. The proceedings at Manchester, it would be remembered, oc Sir Samuel Romilly said, he agreed with every syllable of the address as far as he could understand it from hearing it read, and declared that he should be extremely sorry to say any thing that would interrupt the harmony of the House. There was one subject which should cause har-cupied a large portion of the last report mony to prevail on the present occasion, if any cause could have that effect. If ever there was an event of distress and calamity, it was that on which they had now to offer their condolence to the throne, the loss of the illustrious Princess who had engrossed the affections and engaged the hopes of the nation. But it was the privilege of members to introduce on that occasion matters which had happened during the recess, and especially if they proceeded from measures sanctioned by themselves; therefore the noble lord was perfectly in order, when he animadverted on the late trials, not so much as insulated events, but because they might be considered as part of the system of government now exercised. They threw great light on the extraordinary act which deprived us of the more valuable part of our constitution. Parliament was now called together under a public calamity; for what else was it to be called together under the suspension of the best parts of the constitution? He would not now say any thing of the promise of the immediate repeal of that measure. He only adverted to occurrences which threw light on the grounds on which the suspension was passed. There was no irregularity at this time in referring to that important transaction of the last session, the suspension of the (VOL. XXXVII. ) of the secret committees. It was stated in both the reports, that a treasonable conspiracy of the most atrocious kind had existed at Manchester-that it had been in agitation by the idle and disaffected to attack the barracks and to burn the manufactories, solely for the purpose of destroying the means of work, and adding by general distress to the numbers of those who would engage in desperate plans. In the Lords' report the phrase was, "to make Manchester a Moscow." It was stated in those reports, that some of the conspirators were in custody, and he had then suggested that these persons should be immediately brought to trial. How had they been proceeded against? The causes were removed by certiorari to the court of King's-bench, to prevent a disclosure of the real nature of the charge against them, and at the next assizes in Lancaster, then his learned friend (Mr. Topping, who acted for the attorney-general, stated that no evidence was to be produced against them. Government knew from the beginning that no evidence could be brought against them by which they could be convicted, and therefore, turning the advantage they had gained against the people, for it was so, to their own account, they took credit for clemency, because they did not produce (D) evidence which had never existed. It was declared that the prosecutions were discontinued, because every thing was tranquil, and the ministers were willing to show their clemency. But was it not sufficiently obvious, that this clemency was shown because there was not sufficient evidence to convict any one of them? If there was any truth in the statements of the report as to the atrocious measures of destruction which these men meditated, were they persons to whom clemency ought to have been shown? What! were persons guilty of conspiring to burn factories, attack barracks, and create a revolution to be discharged without trial, and without punishment? But though the country was so tranquil at that time (it was in September last), that it was deemed unnecessary to resort to the ordinary modes of legal trial, and the alleged offenders were discharged, yet those against whom there never had been supposed to be evidence sufficient to put them on their trials-those who had been arrested under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus, were kept in prison. So that those against whom there was the strongest case were discharged-those against whom there was the weakest case, were kept in confinement. The proceedings in Scotland he should not now enter into, as they would be made i subject of a separate motion by a noble lord behind him; but he should beg the House to bear in mind how much of the effect which had been produced on the House, had been occasioned by an oath which the lord advocate had read in his place. The person who had been said to have administered it, had been proceeded against on three several indictments, that he might not escape; yet at last he had been acquitted. He would say nothing at present of the extraor dinary, unprecedented-unprecedented he was confident in England, and he believed even in Scotland-the unprecedented attempts to prevail upon another prisoner to give evidence against the accused. The next transactions to which he would request their attention were those at Derby. The result of the proceedings there he should not call in question, neither should he decide that the argument maintained with such extraordinary ability by the counsel for the prisoner, to give a large construction to the Riot Act of Geo. 1, was erroneous. There could be no doubt that the persons who suffered, whether guilty of treason or not, were guilty of a capital crime; Brandreth had committed a murder, and those who aided and abetted it, were in law equally guilty.-But the proceedings on that trial, more than any other, pronounced a full condemnation on the suspension of the Habeas Corpus. In the first place, the Habeas Corpus had been suspended five months, yet it did not prevent those crimes. It was evident, too, how much care was taken on those trials to conceal the truth. No evidence of any proceeding prior to the 8th of June was suffered to transpire; although the attorney-general, in his opening speech on those trials, had said, that he could prove that Brandreth had meetings with the conspirators previous to the 8th of June, and it was his duty to have given evidence respecting them. It was not merely the guilt or innocence of the individuals accused that was at stake, but the character of the House, and the credit due to the government. Yet no evidence respecting those previous meetings was given. There was from this circumstance a strong presumption; and in his conscience he believed, from the information he had received, that the whole of that insurrection was the work of the persons sent by the government-not indeed for the specific purpose of fomenting disaffection-but as emissaries of sedition from clubs that had never existed. The crown lawyers, in making out their case, took care that it should not be ascertained how far this information was correct. The attorney-general having promised, in opening the trial against Brandreth, that he would prove his having been present at several meetings anterior to the 8th of June, was called on by the counsel for the prisoners to produce that evidence, on the first, on the second, and on the third trials, yet he persevered in the course which he had first adopted, of leaving all the previous proceedings in obscurity. Here too, they had a specimen. of the exercise of the power given under the Habeas Corpus suspension act. had been urged by those who opposed the suspension, that it could be of no use in cases in which powerful or distinguished men were not engaged in treasonable plots. To this it was said, that the leaders might be seized on the point of the breaking out of insurrections, and that the plans might be thus broken up. Now the ministers had previous informa It |
