of the duties on Wines in Ireland, distinguishing the several species of wine; with an account of the produce of the duties on Teas, the produce of the Window Tax, &c. &c. in the years 1808, 9, 10. Ordered.

Mr. Foster stated, that he wished to send over the petition of the proprietors of bleach fields in Ireland, calling for a commutation of the capital punishment for stealing the linen from their fields, that it might be considered by the whole trade, and desired an order of the House for that, purpose.

The Speaker said, this was a new way of dealing with a petition, and therefore he called the attention of the House to it.

Mr. Foster then, however, withdrew his motion, it being understood that he might have full time for the consideration of the petition, which he would send over to Ireland. without any formal order.

1

THE IRISH CONVENTION ACT.

Mr. Hutchinson adverted to his former statement, that he intended to move for a repeal of the Irish Convention Act. He now supposed, from what had passed to-night, that the question as to the late proceeding under that Act was disposed of; and therefore he now gave notice, that on Monday, the 11th of March, he would move for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal that Act.

The Malt Duty Bill, the Ten Million Exchequer-Bills. Bill, the One Million and a Half Exchequer-Bills Bill, and the Irish Treasury-Bills Bill, were read a third time, and passed.

Adjourned till Monday.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

MONDAY, MARCH 4.

The Coroner for the county of Surrey presented the papers respecting the death of the unfortunate debtor in the Marshalsea prison, which were moved for last week by Lord Holland.

LIBEL LAW.

At half-past five, Lord Holland moved the order of the day on the notice of motion he had given on this subject. Lord Holland then rose, and commenced by observing, VOL. II.-1811.

2 C

that their Lordships were summoned there that day on a subject of very great importance. When he first moved that their Lordships be summoned, he felt persuaded that the proposition he was to submit to them was so reasonable, so consistent with the usage of their House, so clearly deducible, not merely from the duties they had occasionally to perform, but the natural and necessary consequence of those duties which they should uniformly and unremittingly discharge, that he could not anticipate any opposition whatever. He had, however, received an intimation, that opposition would be made, and he took the opportunity of expressing his thanks for the politeness with which it had been intimated to him. He was sorry, at the same time, to observe, that it was from a quarter, whence opposition, on such a subject particularly, seldom proved fruitless. It became therefore necessary for him to dwell rather more at length than he had intended on the grounds of his motion, which was merely for the production of such documents as either were, or ought to be, public to all the kingdom, respecting matters that related to the public administration of justice in the case of individuals accused of libels. To such a production he thought Parliament ought not to object. In another House, if it were regular for him to allude to its forms, he believed that a Committee of Justice was moved for, and appointed to sit every Session of Parliament, and whose duty it was to look at the administration of the Courts of Justice, to watch the conduct of their Crown law officers, and to see that they did not conduct themselves in a manner injurious to the liberty of the subject; not merely that they did not conform to the letter, but to the spirit of the law of the land. The forms of Parliament, therefore, showed, that it was their duty to take these important matters constantly under their consideration. Nay, on this subject, their Lordships would find proof then before them, that there could be no just foundation for opposing this motion, by calling it a charge against the Courts of Justice; for they had before their Committee, recently moved for, information of the number of prosecu tions entered into in the Lower Courts, against persons for offences incurring capital punishments under the penalties of the Revenue Laws, and which that Committee was to examine and report upon. The object, then, was to shew the number and the nature of such prosecutions and convictions, which had been done in the discussion of other bills, and

could not be said to convey the slightest imputation upon the Judges; and he could not see why, in this case, the same information might not be given with the same freedom from any imputation of that sort. He meant to throw no imputation upon the learned Judges, for whom he had a high respect, for some of them personal friendship, and admiration of their learning and wisdom. The general principle on which information was produced to their Lordships would, he thought, fully justify what he intended to submit, even without a reference to an abuse of the exercise of the power of the Attorney-General. But on that subject, he had to call to their recollection, that a Bill had within the last two or three years been brought in at the lag-end of a Session, which he unsuccessfully opposed, and which passed into a law, altering the old fundamental laws of the country-altering that which the stream of the laws proved to be the law of the land, without any reason assigned for it in the preamble of the Act, except what had been since stated of the Revenue laws. This Act gave to the simple filing of an information ex officio, by one man, possibly acting conscientiously, all the force which could be derived from the opinions of twelve lawfully chosen and sworn. For giving him by this Act the power of holding men to bail on his filing an information, no sort of reason was given in the preamble. When he expected that no opposition would be given to his motion, it was, perhaps, a proof of his own simplicity rather than of any thing else. When the law was thus altered, no papers were laid on the table to shew the necessity for it; nor any reason given, except, as he thought, that only and insufficient one, that by enabling the Attorney-General to hold a man to bail, the facility of compelling his appearance was secured, and that his trial for the crime was thereby rendered more probable. Would it be said, that it was now improper to know what had been the effect of this alteration? By the production of the information he sought, they would see, first what its effects had been in the prevention of libels, and the correction of the licentiousness of the press; and whether those who were deemed libellers had been brought to a more speedy punishment. Let their Lordships take the opportunity of looking at this subject, at a time of the session which would afford them opportunity and leisure to examine and judge of the wisdom of this recent alteration of the law. These grounds appeared to him sufficient to justify any noble

Lords in voting for his motion, even though they differed from him in their opinions, and in the remedies which he thought ought to be applied. On a subject with which the administration of the Courts of Justice was connected, he felt himself placed in circumstances that were to him personally unpleasant, and even disadvantageous. He had, in the case of opposition, much to fear; because, if he considered the abuse of the powers of the Attorney-General so great as to require the attention and interference of Parliament, he might be deemed favourable to the particular species of offence, and he might also be accused of great presumption in meddling with affairs of law, considering his education and habits. But, he must candidly say, that the probability of such accusations had little dread for him. (Hear!) If in looking back to the history of Parliament and the country as it related to the laws of libel, he could find the best laws on the subject uniformly proposed and supported by high law characters, he confessed, he should admit himself guilty of high presumption in bringing such matters forward: but when he recollected what was the history of such proceedings; that the cessation of the licensing power in Charles II, and James II, was not the work of such eminent persons when he also remembered that in later years the Libel Bill, the recollection and consideration of which was naturally impressed upon his mind by many peculiar and important circumstances, (the Bill brought in by the late Mr. Fox)he confessed he could see no reason why any particular description of noble Lords, however learned in their profession, should monopolize the proposition of every measure concerning the laws of the country. (Hear!) Many reasons might even be seen, derived from a philosophical view of the subject, and from a consideration of human nature, why, even with the pure conscience and abilities of the noble Lord who was Chief Justice of the King's Bench, such learned persons were not to be expected to be the first on such subjects. It was natural for such persons to think no alterations necessary, and to say conscientiously for themselves, "We have only public justice in our eye." They were, perhaps, the least likely to suggest any limitations to the power of the officers of the law. But neither of his motions went to meddle with the law of libel as it stood. Whether that branch of the laws of this country was or was not perfect, whether the definitions given of libel were near perfection or not, he did not mean to discuss. Perhaps

the prejudices of his education, or some other circumstances, might influence his judgment; he must say, whatever the Law of England was on the subject, that in his Utopia the branch of the Libel-law would be confined to a very short chapter indeed! (Hear!) He admitted what was said of the extreme difficulty of defining libels; but certainly the law has not solved that difficulty as he should like to see it in what might be called a complete Utopia. (Hear!) One great point to which he would call their attention was, that the crime of libel was, with the ex ception of treason, placed on a different footing from all others. It involved a problem, he allowed, which the wisdom of no society had yet succeeded in solving, and thereby setting it free from the political feelings of the day, and the accidental interests and dispositions of those who might be at the head of the administration of the country. The law of England had endeavoured to do more than others in this respect, by the intervention of a Jury of twelve men. But in prosecutions in cases of libel, as of treason, those persons who must be the agents of the government were certainly more interested; or if that were an improper word, he would say, would have a bias towards viewing offences bordering on libels as great crimes even when they were not so by any just definition of them. In the case of prosecution for robbery or felony there was no description of persons interested in that manner. In the case of charges for treason, the government was, doubtless, biassed against those who might probably make a successful opposition to their proceedings. For that reason it appeared, that our law had defined carefully what was meant by the crime of treason, and had placed many guards against the conviction of an innocent man on the charge of that crime. This was much to the credit of our legislature, and formed, perhaps, the best-founded subject for panegyric of any in the whole fabric of the law of England. He should wish to know why nothing of the same kind should exist with respect to libels? He desired to be understood that he was here speaking of the state libels, and not of individual and personal slander. He conceived it to be quite clear, that even lawful discussion was often thought libellous by those in power, when it was disagreeable and opposite to their view. In this view of the matter, it might be seen that any discussion of the conduct of the members of Government would appear very near to a libel, when carried on in a mode that was unpleasant, while at the same time the conduct of