tion of Brandreth's designs, yet they did not seize him. He was suffered to go on till he had effected all the mischief in his power. Thus, upon the only occasion of the kind, the only use proposed to be made of the suspension was not made of it. The next subject to which he would advert, regarding the general conduct of administration since the last session, was, the prosecutions carried on against Mr. Hone, to which his noble friend had alluded. He did this the more willingly, as they made part of a connected system, and as the publications which they were instituted to suppress, composed part of the evidence on which the liberties of the country were suspended. The House would remember the use which had been made of those publications; the House would remember, that the late attorneygeneral (sir William Garrow), had stated in that House, that he had received a copy of one of these terrible parodies. He declared that it was monstrously blasphemous; and when some one begged him to read it, he replied that he would never consent to any thing so horrible, as to read in the House of Commons such a production, but that he would seal it up and lay it on the table, that any member who had a doubt on its tendency, or might desire to satisfy himself, might open the seal and read it. Yet, notwithstanding this delicacy and regard to public morals, his hon. and learned friend the attorneygeneral had proceeded in his endeavours to protect religion and morality, by multiplying copies of these parodies by thousands, and scattering them in profusion over all parts of the country. Before he commenced his prosecution, the parodies complained of had entirely disappearedthey had been suppressed by their author, and withdrawn altogether from circulation. It was stated by a witness on the trial of Mr. Hone, that he could not procure a copy by the most diligent search; and that a guinea was offered in vain for a work that had originally been published at twopence. These parodies, therefore, had been completely withdrawn, and had disappeared from public notice, when his hon. and learned friend thought proper to publish a new edition of them; and what was stranger still, on the pretence of preventing their publication. He had given them a permanent place in the history of the country, he had made them a part of its judicial annals, he had given occasion to collect all the parodies that had been published in former ages, to print them in one convenient little volume, and to hand them down to posterity. And why was this done ?-Why were the prosecutions of Mr. Hone persisted in, if, according to the language held regarding the prisoners at Lancaster, the evil was stopped in November, and the state of the country had become so tranquil, and so satisfactory, as to enable administration to exercise with safety the royal clemency? His hon. and learned friend, it would appear from this proceeding, took credit for clemency when he could not get a conviction, and when he could get a conviction was willing to show no clemency. He (sir S. Romilly) did not mean to defend the publications in question; they were most offensive and reprehensible, though they did not amount to blasphemy, as they had been said to do elsewhere, though not in the prosecution. They were composed for a political object, and not for the purpose of attacking religion; but whatever was their object, their composition was most offensive and indefensible. To treat with levity the religion of the country, to hold up sacred subjects to ridicule by employing their language to promote political objects, and to inspire the minds of the people with a disrespect or contempt for those doctrines which should be respected for their importance to public morals by those ever who did not believe them, was conduct that deserved the highest reprehension. hon. and learned friend could not feel greater disapprobation of such publications than he himself, but he still could not see that his proceedings were justifiable. He (sir Samuel) was willing to believe that he (the attorney-general) was not stimulated to such prosecutions by vindictive motives, but he could scarcely otherwise explain his conduct. If the prosecutions were not vindictive, why were they undertaken? The publications themselves were stopped before he attempted to suppress them. This injudicious attempt brought them again into public notice, and gave them infinitely greater currency than they could have obtained in their original state, with a great mass of concealed, forgotten, and unknown parodies attached to them. He could not believe that his hon. and learned friend could have contemplated this consequence, and yet how could it have escaped him? Should he not have known, that on the trial, those parodies which His had been before little known, or alto- | In searching after this reason, he was led gether forgotten, would be brought for- to the discovery of an object, in which ward and circulated to an infinitely he hoped they were for ever defeated. greater extent than if they had never He believed in his conscience that mibeen mixed with the proceedings of a nisters, by urging these prosecutions in court of justice? But, notwithstanding the face of repeated failures, wished to this natural anticipation, his hon. and bring the trial by jury, that great safelearned friend had proceeded as if he guard of our rights, into discredit and could not give them currency enough; and contempt, that they might, by the assisafter having seen the effect of one prosecu- tance of a religious cry, be enabled, with tion in bringing forward long-forgotten less opposition, to lay restraints upon the parodies, went on with the other two, as if press. He could not forget that in those with the intention of procuring an acces- vehicles of public opinion under the consion or others. Why was the second prose- trol of government, such a project was cution persisted in by his hon. and broached, and he was convinced that the learned friend, after he had failed in ob- destruction of that confidence generally taining a verdict on the first? Because, reposed in juries was a preparatory part said he, the second parody was as much of the plan. If this was their object it a libel as the first, and his relinquishing was happily defeated by the firmness of would thus have been a dereliction of his the juries, combined with the good sense, is the public duty. But was it the duty of an public spirit, and active vigilance of the attorney-general to prosecute every country. The trial by jury was one of thing that was prosecutable? If this was the great bulwarks of our rights, and he the case, he was imposing upon himself could scarcely have believed it possible more extensive obligations than he was that any ministers could have entertained probably aware of, and might be led to the idea or the wish to bring it into discarry his prosecutions to other quarters. credit with the nation, unless he had reIf this was the case, it became his hon. membered other transactions and attempts and learned friend to look about him. which seemed consistent with such an obBut, instead of three prosecutions, would ject. He could not have attributed to not one have been sufficient; and should them such a design, if he did not know not at least the verdicts given in the two that the ministers composed the same goformer have taught him what was to be vernment that issued directions to the expected on the third? In the third, how- magistrates how they were to act in the ever, he proceeded, although the court discharge of the duty which the constiof King's-bench, in a trial connected with tution assigned them, and promulgated the same publication, had considered it laws never before understood, on the auas less offensive than the two former thority of the legal advisers of the crown; publications, because the Athanasian creed if he did not know that they were the was not held in such high respect as the same administration that suspended the Litany, and had been induced to award a Habeas Corpus in time of peace; if he less severe penalty, because the defendant did not know that they were the same adhad shown himself sensible of his error, ministration that presumed to say that and thrown himself on the tender mercies the names of those imprisoned under it of the attorney-general. The least criwere not to be revealed, and that the minal of the parodies was the last prose- royal prerogative should be interposed, cuted, and the prosecution was persevered contrary to law, between them and the in after a double failing, according to the visiting magistrates, thus defeating an act explanation of his hon. and learned friend of parliament; if he did not know that himself, because he thought it would have they were the same government who, manifested weakness in him to have re- after confining men for several months in linquished it. He meant nothing per- prison without a charge, dismissed them sonal to the attorney-general. without a trial, requiring them first to an agent of government, and doubtless give security for their conduct, and when acted on their views and by their insti- they refused such security, allowing them gation in bringing on the third trial. He to depart without it; trusting to a bill was unwilling to believe that govern- of indemnity to cover their conduct, ment themselves acted on any vindictive which bill of indemnity he would oppose, principles, but they must have had some whatever hopes they had of obtaining it. reason for such extraordinary conduct. He could not, in fine, forget that they He was were the same government who, conscious that they had exposed themselves to be called to a severe account by the country, had endeavoured to excuse their own acts by requiring these prisoners to confess that they had done wrong, by giving security for the peace. If their object, in the repeated prosecutions of Mr. Hone, was what he had stated, and what the whole tenour of their conduct justified him in believing, he was happy to see that they were defeated by the good sense and public principles of the people. If such plans had been ever formed, they had now proved abortive, and the religi ous cry by which they had got into office had not, on this occasion, turned to their advantage. He had thought it incumbent upon him to take the earliest opportunity of calling the attention of the House to the subjects to which he had shortly adverted, and he would have reckoned silence on the present occasion, the greatest dereliction of his public duty. was offered, were only those who had been called "the Blanketeers." They, though a bill had been found against them by the grand jury, had been dismissed, as the restored tranquillity of the country made it unnecessary to punish them, as it was believed that they were weak instruments in the hands of others, and as the imprisonment they had already suffered, and the contrition they manifested for their past conduct, made it probable that enough had been done, and that they might be safely restored to society. The next point to which his hon. and learned friend adverted, was, the trials at Derby. It was with surprise he had listened to any attempt to cavil at those proceedings. From the part that he had taken in those prosecutions, it was with reluctance that he alluded to them; but thus far he would assert with confidence, that no man who had attended to those prosecutions, to the manner in which in every part they were conducted, but was convinced that a more satisfactory judicial investigation never took place. He denied that the attorney-general had stated in the first trial that he was in possession of proofs of meetings having taken place, at which Brandreth was present, anterior to the 8th of June. The attor The Solicitor General, on an occasion when, according to the noble lord and the hon. and learned gentleman, unanimity was so very desirable as it was on this, he was surprised that such speeches should be made as had just been heard, and that this should be stated to be the only opportunity that would offer for disney-general had argued in his opencussing those topics which they had ing, as he (the solicitor-general) had touched upon, when already a notice done in the reply, that from the sion their table which would bring tuation in which Brandreth was found them regularly before the House, and on the 8th of June, it was evident that when neither the Speech of the Prince prior meetings must have taken place. Regent nor the speeches of the mover It was contended that the conspiracy and seconder of the Address could have could not have originated on that day in led any one to anticipate such a debate. the public-house at Pentridge, but that The hon. and learned gentleman had as- previous arrangements must have been serted facts to have transpired since the made to farther a treasonable plan, long separation of parliament, which had proved before concerted, and laboured towards that there were not good grounds for the maturity, till at length the conspirators suspension of the Habeas Corpus act. believed themselves capable of carrying His statement of the proceedings which it into effect. If previous meetings could had taken place at Manchester (his hon. be shown to have taken place, at which and learned friend must excuse him) was the agents of government were present, not fair. He had assumed that the per- exciting the conspirators to rebellion, sons lately discharged on their recogni- why had not this been shown by the prizances, were the identical persons whom soners and their learned counsel? Was the reports of the Houses of Parliament it to be contended, because sufficient evilast session charged with being engaged dence was procured to satisfy a jury that in a conspiracy to burn Manchester. He high treason had been committed, that had thought proper to confound those the prosecutor was bound to prove in persons who had been brought up to be evidence all that had passed among the tried for misdemeanors with those who parties before the crime was committed? were accused of high treason. He must If this were admitted, to this extent must know that those who had been arraigned, the argument go, that conviction should and against whom no evidence had been not take place on satisfactory evidence of Sir S. Romilly said, it was the opinion of the court of King's-bench. treason committed, because other evi- | noble lord, that the same offence was, afdence which the prosecutor might be ter one acquittal, again pertinaciously able, or might not be able to produce, subjected to the decision of another jury. was not given to show what the conspira- The third publication had been admitted tors had intended before. He next came by the gentlemen opposite to be also imto the prosecutions for libel, to which his proper: it constituted, in the opinion of hon. and learned friend had so pointedly his hon. and learned friend, only a lesser adverted. The noble lord and his hon. offence; that, however, was only his opiand learned friend had both admitted that nion. these publications were improper, but that they ought not to have been prosecuted because, forsooth, the very prosecution had the effect of giving them greater publicity. If that objection was to be allowed any force, the more atrocious a libel was, the more pernicious to the public morals, the more dangerous to the public peace, the more reason there would be not to prosecute inasmuch as the prosecution of the offence was certain to extend the circulation. "But then," said the noble lord, "inasmuch as you persevered in the successive trials against Mr. Hone, you evidenced an intention to appeal from the verdict of one jury to that of another." There might be some foundation for that charge, if the successive trials had reference to identical libels, but that was not the case. They constituted different offences. If a man committed three different murders on the same night in the same house, would the acquittal on one murder constitute an argument against future prosecutions on the other indictments? That difference existed in the case of Mr. Hone: the offences were to be proved by distinct evidence. He was prepared to assert, that if a man sold three libels in the same shop, he might be prosecuted on an indictment which comprehended all the libellous publications. Yet if such a course had been pursued by the attorney-general, it would no doubt have been considered as extremely severe, and calculated to embarrass and confuse the defence of the accused. But what said his hon. and learned friend? He met the objection of the noble lord; he asserted that the second libel for which Mr. Hone was arraigned was much more improper than the first; he said that if he had to prosecute he would have selected the second publication as the one on which he would have proceeded. This view of the case might attach want of management to the attorney-general-It might impute to him the error of selecting his weakest case for his first effort, but it decidedly disproved the assertion of the The Solicitor General observed, that still it was an offence, and the court had visited it with punishment in the person of the printer. Ex concessis he had a right to assume that his hon. and learned friend would have tried Mr. Hone on the second publication. The objection therefore of their being identical publications altogether failed, and the prosecutors of the crown were bound in duty to submit each of the indictments to the verdict of a jury. On those verdicts it did not become him to offer any observations-they were not called for by the present discussion. It had been stated that the accused himself had suppressed these publications before the prosecutions were instituted against him; and thence it was contended, that the attorney general should not have proceeded. This would be a weak argument for abstaining from prosecution, even on the supposion that the suppression was complete; but here there was no such thing. Did not his hon. and learned friend know that the libels had been circulated through the whole country, that they were republished in many places, and that almost immediately before Carlisle had been punished for having printed what this defendant composed. Various prosecutions had been instituted. The libels were spreading in every direction, and therefore he (the solicitor-general) could not allow to go out to the public uncontradicted, that they had been completely suppressed by the voluntary exertion of their author. He really could not discover on what ground the noble lord and his hon. and learned friend could condemn the libels without approving of their prosecution. They were admitted on all hands to be wicked, reprehensible, and dangerous publications; and the officers of the crown would have abandoned their duty, if they had not endeavoured to stop their circulation, and to prevent the repetition of similar offences, by bringing their author to justice, and although it might not be practicable to administer the remedy without giving to the libels themselves a greater publicity, it was by no means to be contended that on that account the remedy ought not to be applied. No just ground of censure had been alleged against the conduct of his hon. and learned friend, the attorney-general, and he therefore could not see the necessity of the observations in which his hon. and learned friend, preceded by the noble lord, had indulged. The Lord Advocate of Scotland said:I beg leave, on the present occasion, to make a few observations, having been particularly alluded to by my hon. and learned friend opposite. I do not now mean to go into a review of the circumstances connected with the subject which he has introduced to the House; but, when the motion of which a noble lord has given notice is brought forward, I shall be prepared to show, that the charges insinuated by my hon. and learned friend are wholly unfounded. I will show, that the imputation of ignorance, in drawing up the indictment, is completely fallacious; and, from the issue of the trial-from the address of the judge to the prisoner, on his being dismissed from the bar, when the jury had returned a verdict, well known in the law of Scotland, as distinguished from a verdict of "not guilty" I mean a verdict of "not proven"-I will substantiate the fact, that the oath to which I referred was taken by certain persons engaged in a traitorous conspiracy at Glasgow. With respect to another allegation, of far more importance, namely, that I acted corruptly, or that I suffered corrupt practices to be resorted to, for the purpose of influencing evidence, instead of the statement of my hon. and learned friend being correct, I shall be able to prove, that, so far from any thing corrupt having been done by me, or any other servant of the crown, on the occasion adverted to, we, in fact, did nothing, but what we could not have omitted doing, without being guilty of a gross dereliction of duty. Lord Archibald Hamilton said, that notwithstanding the confident tone in which the learned lord had spoken, he was prepared to bring before the House such a case as would justify the strong epithets which had been applied to the transactions in Scotland. The learned lord said, he would be able to substantiate what he had last year stated to the House respecting the conspiracies and the oath. He * well remembered that the statement of the learned lord was, that many hundred individuals in the city of Glasgow and its neighbourhood were involved in those criminal proceedings. If this were true, how did it happen that the learned lord and all his colleagues had only brought forward one trial; a trial indeed in which two persons were involved, but still only one trial? On the present occasion, he would not anticipate the discussion in detail of those proceedings, for the examination of which a particular day was now fixed; but he would just tell the learned lord, that he was not the only person who was deeply implicated in those proceedings. The system on which they had been carried on was most disgraceful to the country; for it was a system of unjust accusation, of absurdity, and of inconsistency with the professions of the very men who acted upon it. As to the Address itself, he did not see any particular reason to oppose it. Lord Folkestone said :-Unwilling as I am, at all times, to offer myself to the notice of the House, and feeling that unwillingness, in a peculiar degree at present, when symptoms of weariness begin to be manifested at the protraction of the debate; yet I think it my duty, reprobating, as I do, the conduct of his majesty's ministers during the recess, not to be perfectly silent on this occasion. With respect to the trials, noticed by those who preceded me, I shall say very little. Of those which took place in Scotland I shall say nothing whatever. But, with reference to the other trials, I shall merely say, that if any person who heard the statement of my hon. and learned friend, and the answer attempted to be given to it, did not feel convinced that the facts adduced by him stood uncontradicted, I think he must either not have attended to that statement, or his mind must be wilfully opposed to conviction. The hon. and learned gentleman opposite met the statement of my hon. and learned friend, with respect to the trials at Manchester, by saying, that the persons set at liberty were not those who had been taken up on the charge of conspiring to burn that town. My hon. and learned friend believes, and I also believe, that they were the identical persons. On what authority have we come to that conclusion? On the authority of the Report of the Select * See Vol. 35, p. 729. |