subject; but it was under the head of offences læsæ majestatis that this offence of libel was first introduced

Tacitus has the following passage on the subject:

"Facta arguebantur, dicta impune erant. Primus Augustus cogni "tionem de famosis libellis, specie legis ejus, tractavit: commotus "Cassii severi libidine, quâ vizos feminasque illustres procacibus scrip"tis diffamaverat."

Augustus was the first who brought writings under the lash of the law. It was afterwards carried farther, and even words, looks, or tears were punished. A Roman knight had been punished for calling Cassius the last of the Romans; another was punished for having the statue of Cassius amongst those of his ancestors. No freedom could exist where such arbitrary proceedings were tolerated. He should not be against the punishment of scurrilous' and defamatory publications, where malice could be proved, any more than against the punishment of offences committed with the dagger. It was in consequence of the grievances arising from the proceedings in the Star-Chamber, that one of the Stuarts, a martyr to obstinacy, had been brought to the block. It had been said, that when they considered the cropped ears, slit noses, and other arbitrary proceedings of that day, Englishmen should lay it to heart what a slavish condition they should be reduced to, if such a state of things were to continue. But he would desire gentlemen to lay it to heart what may be the consequence of the present practice, if the Attorney-General were to exercise his present power. Upon all these grounds he should give his decided support to the motion.

Mr. Stephen maintained the legality of the practice of filing ex-officio informations. The honourable Baronet was consistent in not giving his sanction to prosecutions for libels. In a speech of his to the sage judges of law assembled, not in Westminster-Hall, but in the purlieus of WestminsterHall, sub diu in Palace-Yard, he, as appeared from a news paper report of his speech, pledged himself to his auditory, that when the subject should be under discussion, he should prove that the practice was contrary to the principles of the Constitution." But he would join his learned friend in challenging the honourable Baronet to point out any time in which libels were lest severely punished than at present. The learned gentleman here enumerated several cases of the punishment of fine, pillory, imprisonment, and fogging, having been inflicted for libel,

in the reigns of William and Mary, of Anne, of Geo. I. and of Geo. II. disclaiming at the same time any desire to express approbation of such severity, though he could not avoid stating the cases, in order to shew that in good times more severity was used than at present. He was not surprised at the part the honourable Baronet took upon this subject, because he had forborne to prosecute a most gross libel against himself which appeared in another part of the same paper in which he read the passage of the honourable Baronet's speech. That paper had represented the honourable Baronet to have said "that all the grievances of the people were engendered in the corruptions of that House of Commons, falsely stating itself to be the legal representatives of the people. This was a most gross libel on the honourable Baronet: but he was treated much worse in a subsequent part of the paper, where he is made to say, "that po government can stand without the confidence of the people;" and also," that the people can never regain their right to petition the House during the remainder of this long and misguided reign." All those passages, he contended, were gross libels on the honourable Baronet, particularly the last The whole of the argument of the noble Lord resolved itself into this, that there had been a greater number of prosecutions for libels of late than formerly. This had been satisfactorily answered by the observations of his hon. and learned friend, from the greater number of periodical papers that were now published, which was likely to be followed by an increase of libels. There was a spirit in many political writings at present, which was peculiarly dangerous, and required to be carefully watched, and put down if possible. It was not confined to the attack of this or that Administration, but was hostile to the very Constitution itself. Attempts were made to calumniate the very system of the Government itself, and particularly in regard to the army, on which the safety of the country so greatly depended. It was an ominous circumstance with regard to the present period, that the press had teemed with more libels on that very point than on any other. To give the House some idea of the astonishing multitude of periodical publications, he would mention, that in last January alone, there were no fewer than 2,037,000 stamps for newspapers issued from the Stamp-Office. Under such circumstances, taken altogether, the mildness and moderation with which the powers

of the Attorney-General had been exercised, really appeared as manifest as their legality.

Mr. Peter Moore observed, that all that was sought for on the present occasion, was the means of investigation. The public mind was greatly interested in the present question; and very properly, for the liberty of the press was the best birth-right of an Englishman, and what, perhaps, he had most to depend upon for the maintenance of all his other rights. To his certain knowledge, in consequence of the numerous prosecutions lately instituted, an alarm had gone abroad that struck such a terror into booksellers, (A laugh) that when a person very lately offered a pamphlet to the London booksellers, displaying the most nefarious practices in certain gaols in Ireland that ever disgraced at civilized country, offering also to prove them by athidavits, he could not get a publisher. This fact struck him with alarm; for if the abuses of power were not to be exposed, then there was every danger of their being practised with impunity.

Sir S. Romilly declared, that he would not enter upon the general questions which had been that night the subject of discussion, but would shortly state his reasons for the vote which he should give in favour of the motion. The object of it was merely for an account of the number of ex-officio informations that had been filed within a certain number of years back. Now, really, when it was considered, that these were professedly prosecutions instituted by the Government, for the public service, and at the public expence, one would think that there must be very strong reasons, indeed for not acceding to their production. Every thing that had been said by his honourable and learned friend, the Attorney-General, afforded the strongest reasons for granting the information that was now sough for. Public prosecutions ought never to be matters of secrecy, and particularly prosecutions relating to the liberty of the press, which was the great safeguard of all our privileges, civil, religious, or political. (Hear!) The strongest grounds, then, ought to be laid for rejecting the motion. But it was said, that a charge had been made, and if the House granted the papers, they would seem to sanction the charge. Now it appeared to him, that there had been rather two statements of facts, and that that had been asserted on one side of the House which had been denied on the other. Would the House, therefore, refuse the most

authentic information that could be obtained, as to the facts, on which alone they could form their own opinion? His learned friend who spoke last but once, bad said, that the libels which had been prosecuted by the AttorneyGeneral had no connection with the present Administration, or with one Administration more than another, and therefore that the advisers of such prosecutions were not actuated by party motives. This might be all very true; but how was ibe House to know it, if authentic information was denied? Which of them knew how long those prosecutions had been suspended over the head of the defendants? From the speech of his learned friend the Attorney General, the House would naturally be led to conclude, that he had acted a very meritorious part; why, then, did he object to ve that decisive evidence of the propriety of his conduct, which would satisfy the House and the country? There was often heard in the speeches of Ministers a disposition to talk loudly of their responsibility, and in so doing they were cheered by their friends for their great magnanimity; while perhaps the very next day they refused all information; and consequently prevented inquiry, without which there could be no responsibility. Besides if unfounded suspicious had gone abroad, was it not to do the most important benefit to the Government, to afford the required information; and if refused, was it not likely to confirm the suspicions that were entertained? He was further desirous of inquiry because it would include that period when he had the honour to be Solicitor-General, and when he believed no prosecution was undertaken without his opinion and assent. It was said, the press was more licentious than formerly; but it was the common language of all Ministers to represent the press as peculiarly licentious in their time. If of late it had been more licentious than before, that was only a proof of its wonderful buoyancy, for it had grown under greater restraints in respect to publishers and printers than had ever been formerly known. To his own knowledge the existing law requiring the name of the author, or at least of both printer and publisher, had prevented booksellers from publishing books the most innocent, because the author did not choose that his name should be known. It had even been avowed by lawyers as much more important to punish the printer or publisher than the author, and as more effectually checking improper publications. The penalties to which printers and publishers were liable ought to be

strictly watched, for if the regulations respecting them were strictly enforced, the penalties would affect even the compositors and pressmen; and the business would be so fettered and degraded, that no person of respectability would engage

in it.

Mr. Elliot and Mr. Lockhart opposed the motion.

Lord Folkestone replied generally to the several arguments advanced against his motion.

Mr. C. Adams thought if the Attorney-General wished to shew that his conduct had been such as he stated it to be, the greater publicity was given to it, the better it would prove his case.

The question being loudly called for, a division took place

For the motion
Against it

36

Adjourned.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

FRIDAY, MARCH 29.

On the motion of the Earl of Lauderdale, some papers relative to the Correspondence between Government and the Distillers were ordered to be laid before the House.

COMMERCIAL CREDIT.

The Commercial Credit Bill passed through a Committee, and was reported without amendment.

The Earl of Lauderdale gave notice, that he should move a clause on Monday, to prevent the Bank from purchasing the Exchequer Bills issued under this Act. His lordship also stated, that he should then prove that he was correct in stating that the Bank of Ireland had diminished its issues after the Report in 1804, and which had been positively denied by a noble Earl (Ross) on the former evening.

The Earl of Ross said, he had not denied that the Bank of Ireland had diminished its issues at the period alluded to; but what he maintained, and was still prepared to con tend, was, that the exchange became more favourable to Ireland previous to any diminution of its issues by the Bank. His lordship then proceeded to notice a statement in the