-*. k 
 
 *> 5. ^* ' 
 
 JOEL REMINGTON FITHfoN 
 
 : . . * 9 
 
 m
 
 . 
 
 . v * 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 SANTA BARBARA 
 
 PRESENTED BY 
 
 MRS. DONALD KELLOGG
 
 X-
 
 Painted bv SirFLaHtrenct 
 
 the act diretts.by J.Rid/fivay.26g Ra't/d //1\
 
 THE 
 
 SIR SAMUEL ROMILLY 
 
 IN THE 
 
 >ouse of Commons. 
 
 IN TWO VOLUMES. 
 
 VOL. II. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 PRINTED FOR JAMES RIDGWAY AND SON8, 
 PICCADILLY. 
 
 1820.
 
 Printed by S. Gosncll, Little Queen Street, London.
 
 THE CONTENTS OF VOL. II. 
 
 1814. Corruption of Blood on Attainder of 
 
 Felony and Treason Page 1 
 
 Punishment for High Treason 17 
 
 Slave Trade 20 
 
 1815. Militia . 50 
 
 Insolvent Act 63 
 
 1816. Address 69 
 
 Freehold Estates Bill 74 
 
 Treaties with foreign Powers 86 
 
 Insolvent Debtors 99 
 
 Alien Bill 103 
 
 Persecution of the Protestants 117 
 
 1817. Game Laws 148 
 
 Habeas Corpus 155 
 
 Mr. Homer 167 
 
 Seditious Meetings Bill 170 
 
 Welsh Judges 182 
 
 Lotteries , . 185 
 
 State of the Representation 190 
 
 Irish Insurrection Act 202 
 
 Right of Magistrates to visit Prisons 207 
 
 Habeas Corpus 213 
 
 Lord SidmoutKs Circular 227
 
 IV CONTENTS. 
 
 1818. Address Page 361 
 
 Secret Committee 278 
 
 State Trials in Scotland 289 
 
 Spies and Informers 301 
 
 Grievances under the Suspension Act 311 
 
 Privately stealing in Shops, 8$c 320 
 
 Indemnity Bill 329 
 
 Law of Tithes 371 
 
 Privately stealing in Shops, 8$c 379 
 
 , Slaves in Dominica, 8$c 383 
 
 Alien Bill 397 
 
 Alien Bill 402 
 
 Imprisonment for Libel 411 
 
 Alien Bill 415 
 
 Speech on the Bankrupt Laws, delivered in 
 March 1818, before a Select Committee of 
 the House of Commons appointed to consider 
 of those Laws 429 
 
 Speech delivered to a Body of the Electors of 
 Bristol in April 1812 458 
 
 Speech delivered by Sir S. Romilly on his be- 
 coming a Candidate to represent the City 
 of Bristol, in October 1812 466 
 
 Speech at the Close of the Election for West- 
 minster in 1818 . 473
 
 SPEECHES, 
 
 CORRUPTION OF BLOOD ON ATTAINDER 
 OF FELONY AND TREASON. 
 
 April 25th, 1814. 
 
 THE House, on the Motion of Sir Samuel Ro- 
 milly, having resolved itself into a Committee on 
 the Bill for taking away Corruption of Blood, 
 as a consequence of Attainder of Felony and of 
 Treason, Mr. Yorke moved, that the words " and 
 of Treason," should be omitted. The Amendment 
 was opposed by Sir James Mackintosh ; and sup- 
 ported by the Solicitor General (Mr. Serjeant 
 Shepherd). 
 
 Sir Samuel Romilly said, " The speech of my 
 Hon. and Learned Friend has given me much 
 concern, mixed however with some satisfaction. 
 I am concerned to find that he is opposed to me 
 on this question; and I am still more concerned 
 to learn, that I am to have him for an opponent 
 # 'VOL. ii. B
 
 2 CORRUPTION OF BLOOD ON 
 
 to other measures, for the improvement of the law, 
 which I may hereafter bring forward ; but I feel 
 satisfaction in finding, that his opposition will be 
 conducted with that liberality which he has 
 evinced to-night, and which any body who knew 
 him would have expected from him. 
 
 " I cannot, Sir, consent to the alteration in 
 the Bill which has been proposed by the Right 
 Hon. Gentleman, not because I am in the least 
 disposed to render lenient the laws against treason 
 and murder, but because it appears to me that 
 corruption of blood is not a fit punishment for 
 any crime. It has none of the properties of pu- 
 nishment. Punishment should be inflicted on 
 the guilty, but this falls entirely on the innocent. 
 Punishment ought to follow soon after the com- 
 mission of the crime, that the idea of the one 
 may be connected with that of the other; but 
 corruption of blood often produces its effects 
 many generations after the crime has been com- 
 mitted, and when the crime and the criminal 
 have been long forgotten. Whether punishment 
 should be inflicted or not, ought never to de- 
 pend upon the pleasure of private individuals ; but 
 corruption of blood to interrupt the transmis- 
 sion of an estate, can only take effect when the 
 ancestor is negligent enough to die without a will ; 
 for he is allowed to devise the estate to the very 
 persons who are not permitted to inherit from
 
 ATTAINDER OF FELONY AND TREASON. 3 
 
 him ; so that it depends upon accident or neglect, 
 whether this shall or shall not be a punishment. 
 All punish rflents by the constitution 'of the country 
 the King has the power of remitting; but corrup- 
 tion of blood he cannot prevent, because it is con- 
 sidered merely as escheat, and, in many instances, 
 confers rights not on the Crown, but on private 
 individuals. When my Learned Friend stood 
 forward to preserve this part of our Law, I 
 did, I confess, expect that he would at least 
 have taken notice of these difficulties, and have 
 given some reasons why a punishment so ano- 
 malous, so much at variance with every other 
 part of our criminal law, should still be continued 
 as a part of it. 
 
 " If this be a fit law, it is fit that it should be 
 the law of every part of the Kingdom. There is 
 no reason why treason and murder should not be 
 as effectually prevented in Kent, as in every other 
 county of England ; and yet in Kent, where the 
 custom of Gavelkind, the ancient law of England, 
 prevails, there is no corruption of blood for any 
 offence. The Right Hon. Gentleman was mis- 
 taken, when he supposed, that this was amongst 
 the most ancient of our laws ; it was unknown in 
 this Country, until it was introduced, with other 
 oppressive refinements of the feudal tenures, by 
 our Norman Princes. But. the antiquity of the 
 Law is really not worth inquiring into ; the more 
 ancient any criminal law, the less likely is it to
 
 4 CORRUPTION OF BLOOD ON 
 
 be founded on just and rational principles. Strange, 
 indeed, would it be, if the experience of ages, and 
 the progress of the human understanding, had 
 improved every science, but that which is, of all 
 others, the most important to mankind, the sci- 
 ence of Legislation ! 
 
 " The Solicitor General has denied, that the 
 great men whose authority my Learned Friend 
 near me has relied on, those who framed and 
 supported the Act, which declared, that corrup- 
 tion of blood should cease upon the death of 
 the descendants of the Pretender*, he has de- 
 nied, that their authority can fairly be cited as 
 condemning this law. They left it to prevail in 
 all cases of Felony, although they consented to 
 
 * In order to abolish hereditary punishments altogether in 
 cases of Treason, it was enacted by Stat. 7 Ann. c. 21, that after 
 the decease of the then Pretender, no attainder for that offence 
 should extend to the disinheriting of any Heir, nor to the 
 prejudice of any person other than the Traitor himself. The 
 17 George II. c. 29, sect. 3, suspended the operation of this 
 clause, until after the decease, not only of the said Pretender, 
 but also of his eldest, and every other son. But now by the 
 ipth of Geo. III. c. 93, the clauses in the two former Acts, 
 limiting the duration of forfeiture for High Treason, are repealed) 
 and the Law has been brought back, with respect to England, to 
 the state in which it was before the enactment of the 7th of Anne. 
 As to Scotland, the crime of Treason was by the Law of that 
 Country, before the Union, in many respects different from that 
 of Treason in England, particularly in its consequences of for- 
 feiture of Entailed Estates, and Corruption of Blood. 
 
 3
 
 ATTAINDER OF FELONY AND TREASON. 5 
 
 abolish it after a time in the case of High Trea- 
 son ; and it would be a libel, he says, upon them, 
 to suppose that this, which was to remain the law 
 as to the less offence, was not, according to their 
 intention, to be also the law as to the greater. 
 This inconsistency, however, there certainly was 
 in their proceeding, since they left corruption of 
 blood permanent in the case of Felony, though 
 they made it temporary only in the case of Trea- 
 son. But no doubt they foresaw, that when it 
 had ceased to be the consequence of Treason, it 
 would necessarily be abolished by the Legislature 
 as a consequence of Felony. Such Mr. J. Black- 
 stone understood to have been their view of the 
 subject ; for in the last chapter of his Commen- 
 taries, where he passes in review the several 
 changes and improvements which have succes- 
 sively taken place in our Laws and Constitution, 
 in enumerating the beneficial alterations which 
 have been made since the Revolution, he mentions 
 (after the Bill of Rights, the Toleration Act, and 
 the Acts for securing the independence of the 
 Judges, and for regulating trials for High Trea- 
 son), the hope that has been afforded to posterity* 
 that corruption of blood may one day be abolished 
 and forgotten*. Such was the opinion which this 
 Learned Judge entertained of those Laws, and so 
 
 * Comm. Book iv. p. 440. 
 B 3
 
 6 CORRUPTION OF BLOOD ON 
 
 important did he think it, that this doctrine should 
 be abolished ! 
 
 " When indeed I am charged, as I have been, 
 with a desire to alter what has been so long the 
 law of the land, and which is represented as so 
 valuable a part of it, let me at least be allowed to 
 say, that I have the fullest authority of Mr. J. 
 Blackstone, that this alteration is most desirable. 
 r. This corruption of blood,' he says, ' is one of 
 those notions which our Laws have adopted from 
 the feodal Constitutions at the time of the Norman 
 Conquest ; as appears from its being unknown in 
 those tenures, which are indisputably Saxon, or 
 Gavelkind; wherein, though by Treason, ac- 
 cording to the ancient Saxon Laws, the land is 
 forfeited to the King, yet no corruption of blood, 
 no impediment of descents, ensues ; and on judg- 
 ment of mere Felony, no escheat accrues to the 
 Lord. And therefore, as every other oppressive 
 mark of feodal tenure is now happily worn away 
 in these kingdoms, it is to be hoped that this of 
 corruption of blood, with all its connected con- 
 sequences, not only of present escheat, but of fu- 
 ture incapacities of inheritance, even to the twen- 
 tieth generation, may, in process of time, be abo- 
 lished by Act of Parliament. And, indeed, the 
 Legislature has, from time to time, appeared very 
 inclinable to give way to so equitable a provision, 
 by enacting, that in certain Treasons, respecting
 
 ATTAINDER OF FELONY AND TREASON. 7 
 
 the papal supremacy and the public coin, and in 
 many of the new-made felonies created since the 
 reign of Henry VIII. by Act of Parliament, cor- 
 ruption of blood shall be saved. But as in some. 
 of the Acts for creating felonies (and those not of 
 the most atrocious kind), this saving was neglected 
 or forgotten to be made, it seems to be highly 
 reasonable and expedient to antiquate the whole of 
 this doctrine by one undistinguishing law*.' 
 
 " I did not, Sir, expect, that upon this occa- 
 sion we should have had any discussion upon the 
 law of Forfeitures. That law, whatever be its 
 merits, and whatever its defects, is wholly un- 
 touched by the Bill now under our discussion ; 
 and Forfeitures will take place after this Bill 
 passes into a law, in the same manner, and in all 
 the same cases, as it does at present. It was for 
 this reason that, when I introduced the Bill into 
 the House, I omitted to say any thing of the law 
 of Forfeitures; and from this silence it is, that 
 the Right Hon. Gentleman infers that I admit, 
 that the argument formerly used as to the injustice 
 of a Law, which punishes children for the crimes 
 of their father, is to be considered as an exploded 
 argument. So far am I from considering it as ex- 
 ploded, that I should rather say with my Hon. 
 and Learned Friend near me, that it is an ar- 
 
 4 Black, vol. iv. p. 388.
 
 8 CORRUPTION OF BLOOD ON 
 
 gument which remains unanswered, and is unan- 
 swerable. 
 
 " All confiscations forming part of a sentence 
 by which death is inflicted, are founded, in my 
 opinion, upon the greatest injustice. To confiscate 
 the property of the criminal whose life is left un- 
 touched, is to take from him the means by which 
 the enjoyments and comforts of life are supplied ; 
 but if the law deprives him of life also, the for- 
 feiture can only affect those whom he leaves 
 behind him. Upon them alone the punishment 
 falls ; and if the offender be at all affected by it, 
 it is only as he may feel and be afflicted for them. 
 Almost all punishments, indeed, extend beyond 
 the criminal against whom they are directed. 
 The greatest criminals have often deserving rela- 
 tions and connexions, who sympathize in their 
 sufferings, and who, though perfectly innocent, 
 thus endure a part of the punishment ; but this 
 arises from the necessary imperfections of all hu- 
 man institutions. In the law, however, of For- 
 feiture, this, which is an unavoidable evil, but 
 which all wise Legislators would, if it were pos- 
 sible, avoid, is the very principle upon which the 
 law proceeds. The direct punishment is inflicted 
 on the innocent, and it is by sympathy alone that 
 the guilty is affected, if he be at all affected by it. 
 To the most obdurate and hardened it is no pu- 
 nishment at all; to the less criminal, to those
 
 ATTAINDER OF FELONY AND TREASON. 9 
 
 whose minds are not callous to all sense of virtue 
 and of humanity, if to any, it can operate as a pu- 
 nishment.' You choose for the instrument of your 
 moral tortures the best feelings of the human 
 heart, and aggravate and enhance your punish- 
 ment, in proportion as the subject of it is less an 
 object of detestation. 
 
 " M. de Tourreil, a French lawyer, who lived 
 under Louis XIV. and who was greatly distin- 
 guished as a man of letters and a scholar, as well 
 as a lawyer, in an elaborate defence of forfeiture, 
 says, * II faut percer le cceur du Pere dans le 
 sein du Fils.' A more horrible sentiment can 
 hardly be imagined, and yet this is without dis- 
 guise the law of forfeiture. It is true, that the 
 defenders of this law, when they are told of those 
 countries in which Children were made by their 
 deaths to atone for the crimes of their Fathers, 
 express horror at such examples, by which they 
 only show, that it is the degree, not the nature of 
 the injustice, at which they are shocked. They 
 would not consent to do so great a wrong as this; 
 and yet every argument that they use, is as well 
 calculated to justify that greater wrong, as the in- 
 ferior injustice, to which they are willing to be- 
 come parties. 
 
 " A passage was cited the other night, from 
 the e Considerations on the Law of Forfeiture/ 
 as high authority upon this subject. I have the 
 greatest respect for the memory of the author of
 
 10 CORRUPTION OF BLOOD ON 
 
 that tract; but from all that I have heard of his 
 superior talents and endowments, I cannot but 
 think, that it will be much to be lamented, if it is 
 by that work principally that he is to be known 
 to posterity. The great argument upon which he 
 relies, is, that inheritance being a right in the an- 
 cestor of transmitting his estate to his posterity, 
 he may justly be deprived of it for his crimes. 
 The power of alienation, by devise, or otherwise, 
 is properly considered as a right; but how the 
 suffering property to go in the course which the 
 Law has ordered can be so considered, it is very 
 difficult to conceive. A right is that which may 
 or may not be exercised ; but the course of descent 
 from one from whom the power of alienation is 
 taken away, is that over which he has no control, 
 and which he can neither direct nor prevent; and 
 yet, by this artificial subtlety of depriving a cri- 
 minal of the right of transmission, it is, that this 
 law of forfeiture has been principally defended. 
 Upon the subject of corruption of blood, however, 
 the author of that work has himself declared in a 
 letter to Mr. Justice Blackstone, which has been 
 already mentioned in this House, that he did not 
 mean to give any opinion against the expediency 
 of abolishing it*. 
 
 * Sir James Mackintosh remarked on this occasion, that of 
 the two authorities, ancient and modern, usually cited, in jus- 
 tification of Confiscatory Laws, the ancient is now generally con-.
 
 ATTAINDER OF FELONY AND TREASON. 11 
 
 " Both the Gentlemen say, that we have in 
 the mild and merciful administration of justice, 
 which has prevailed during the present reign, a 
 sufficient security that this law will not be used 
 oppressively; and they add, that there can be no 
 doubt, that in the case which has been stated 
 to have occurred during the last rebellion in Ire- 
 land*, the Crown restored the estate to the child 
 of the Officer, who had fallen in resisting the 
 rebels. Why, Sir, in many cases, the Crown has 
 
 sidered as spurious; and the modern is in a great measure dis- 
 claimed by the Author. The letter of Cicero to Brutus, is re- 
 jected by the most learned Critics ; and Mr. Yorke in a letter to 
 Mr. Justice Blackstone, written in the maturity of his judgment 
 and his fame, more than twenty years after his " Considerations 
 on the Law of Forfeiture," requests the learned Commentator to 
 strike out all reference to " a juvenile work;" and particularly 
 states, that it was his object to explain the principle of the Law, 
 without inquiring whether it had not been " earned too far." 
 As this Letter had reference to those parts of the Commentaries, 
 which related to corruption of blood, it is clear, that Mr. Yorke 
 did not desire to be any longer considered as a patron of that Law; 
 that he did not regard his riper judgment as pledged by the ar- 
 gument of a juvenile publication for a temporary purpose; and 
 that his great authority is to be deducted from the topics which 
 are pleaded in support of Confiscation in general; but more espe- 
 cially of corruption of blood. 
 
 * It was the case of an officer who fell in battle against the 
 Irish Rebels, and whose children were deprived of their inhe- 
 ritance by the attainder of one of his relations engaged in that 
 rebellion.
 
 12 CORRUPTION OF BLOOD ON 
 
 not the power to do this ; and the very Gentleman 
 who thus reminds us of the clemency of His Ma- 
 jesty, in the same speech tells us (with what con- 
 sistency it will be for him to show) that we 
 should remember, that by such a law as this, we 
 shall take away the profits of escheats from Lords 
 of Manors. It is, indeed, the peculiar absurdity 
 of this, as a penal law, that it is not a forfeiture 
 to the Crown, but an escheat to the immediate 
 Lord; that whether it shall be inflicted, and to 
 what extent, depends not on those who are acting 
 on behalf of the public, and responsible for what 
 they do, but on private individuals, who may be 
 governed only by their own narrow views, or 
 immediate interests. 
 
 " My Learned Friend objects to this mode of 
 proceeding, to thus, bringing these subjects one 
 by one before the House; and a Right Hon. 
 Gentleman has said, that I ought to present my 
 whole system at once ; or, in other words, that I 
 should come down to this House, and propose, for 
 its consideration, an entire new Criminal Code. 
 Now, Sir, I have no intention to adopt any such 
 course. In the first place, I am not presumptuous 
 enough to suppose myself qualified for any such 
 task ; and in the next place, if I were, I have no 
 system to propose, nor do I think that any is 
 wanted. As a general system, I have as much 
 admiration and respect for our Criminal Law as
 
 ATTAINDER OF FELONY AND TREASON. 13 
 
 those Hon. Gentlemen themselves can have. In 
 that system, however, there is, in my opinion, 
 much which calls for improvement ; and as I am 
 not on the one hand vain enough to think that I 
 could substitute a better in its place; so, on the 
 other, neither will the observations of the Learned 
 Gentleman, nor those which I have heard in other 
 places from persons, whose eminent stations give 
 their sentiments the weight of authority, prevent 
 me, as long as I have a seat in this House, from 
 drawing from time to time the attention of the 
 House, to particular parts of the Law, which may 
 seem to me to admit of, and to require alteration, 
 improvement, and reform. It is in this way, as 
 it appears to me, that any exertions of mine can 
 be most usefully made. Great and extensive im- 
 provements and reforms cannot, with much pro- 
 spect of success, be undertaken by those who are 
 not in official situations. Success, in such attempts, 
 is reserved for those who are advanced high in 
 authority over their fellow-subjects ; and it is this 
 privilege alone, it is the power afforded them of 
 being extensively use/ul to their fellow-creatures, 
 of increasing present, and sowing the seeds of 
 future happiness, of being faithful Servants of 
 their Country, and distinguished Benefactors to 
 Mankind, which can make high and eminent sta- 
 tions objects of ambition to any well-constituted 
 mind.
 
 14 CORRUPTION OF BLOOD ON 
 
 K The Right Hon. Gentleman asks, if this is 
 a proper time to bring forward these innovations. 
 Really, Sir, I know nothing in the present con- 
 dition of this Country which makes such a mea- 
 sure now unfit to be entertained; nay, on the 
 contrary, if ever there was a time in which it was 
 peculiarly proper to entertain and encourage any 
 attempt to reform our laws, and to improve the 
 condition of the people, it is the present. Long 
 has Europe been a scene of carnage and deso- 
 lation. A brighter prospect has now opened be- 
 fore us ; a wiser policy than that which has long 
 prevailed is now likely to be adopted; the jea- 
 lousies and ill will which have prevailed between 
 rival States are subsiding, and nations will begin 
 to discover the sources of prosperity to themselves 
 in the prosperity of their neighbours, and to hail 
 in the liberties of surrounding countries addi- 
 tional securities for their own. The conquest of 
 territory, and the trophies of war, will cease to be 
 objects of ambition. But (as has been nobly 
 said, by the greatest Poet that this Country, or 
 perhaps the World, has produced) 
 
 Peace hath her Victories 
 Not less renown'd than War* 
 
 Victories over those baneful prejudices and mis- 
 taken notions of policy, which have in all ages 
 
 < * Milton's Sonnet to Cromwell.
 
 ATTAINDER OF FELONY AND TREASON. 15 
 
 been nearly as destructive of the happiness of men 
 as the sword of the Conqueror Victories, such 
 as this Nation obtained, when by us its repre- 
 sentatives it proclaimed to the World, that there 
 was an end to that lucrative but cruel trade in 
 human liberty and life, in which we had too long 
 participated Victories, where the shouts of tri- 
 umph and of thanksgiving ascend to Heaven, pure 
 and undisturbed by the groans of the dying, or 
 by lamentations over the dead. 
 
 " One thing more I ought to take notice of. 
 The Right Hon. Gentleman says, that no case has 
 lately occurred, which shows any inconvenience 
 from this law. Sir, it is not necessary to produce 
 any such case, since it is upon general grounds, 
 and not in respect of any particular occurrence, 
 that this interposition of the Legislature is called 
 for. The truth, however, is, that a case has very 
 lately occurred, and is still depending, in which 
 the Crown has, as I think very harshly, insisted 
 upon a claim founded on this law. In the reign of 
 George II. a woman was convicted at Oxford of 
 a murder. An estate, which devolved upon her, 
 has been held from that time to the present by 
 different purchasers, who have paid the full value 
 for it ; and now, at the distance of about half a 
 century, the Crown has set up a claim to the 
 estate as having escheated to it, by the attainder 
 of the murderer. But the most singular circum- 
 stance is, that the person who has given to the
 
 16 CORRUPTION OF BLOOD ON 
 
 Crown the information on which it is proceeding 1 , 
 is the very woman who was attainted, and who, 
 having received a pardon, is now at a very ad- 
 vanced age still living. And the circumstance in 
 the case which appears to me to be one of peculiar 
 harshness, is this: the present possessor of the 
 estate, a Mr. North, desired that he might be per- 
 mitted to disprove the fact on which the claim of 
 the Crown was founded, not the fact of the at- 
 tainder, for of that there was no doubt, but the 
 alleged fact, that the estate was held of the 
 Crown, he insisting, that it was held of another 
 Lord, and that the escheat was to him, and not to 
 the King. Although the inquisition which had 
 been taken was an ex parte proceeding, in which 
 Mr. North had had no opportunity whatever of 
 defending his property, the Crown resisted his 
 request, and insisted that the estate should be 
 taken from him, without allowing him to make 
 any defence. It was not till after a hearing in the 
 Court of Chancery, in which I happened to be 
 Counsel for Mr. North, when the Court decided 
 against the Crown, that Mr. North was allowed 
 to traverse the inquisition, or, in other words, to 
 be permitted to defend himself; and to show, by 
 the evidence in his possession, that the Crown had 
 no title. The traverse went down to be tried at 
 the last Assizes, but the trial has been postponed. 
 What in this proceeding can be found calculated, 
 as all punishments should be, to prevent the com-
 
 PUNISHMENT FOR HIGH TREASON. 17 
 
 mission of crimes ? As a penal Law, thia cannot 
 be justified: on no other principle does any one 
 attempt to justify it, and I therefore confidently 
 hope, that it will be abolished." 
 The House divided: 
 
 For the Amendment - - 47 
 Against it ----- 32 
 
 Majority ----- 15 
 Mr. Yorke then proposed, that the alteration 
 of the Law should not extend to Murder or Petit 
 Treason. The House again divided, when the 
 numbers were, 
 
 For the Amendment - - 41 
 Against it - - - - - 39 
 
 Majority ------ 2 
 
 PUNISHMENT FOR HIGH TREASON. 
 
 April mh, 1814. 
 
 ON the Motion of Sir Samuel Romilly, the House 
 resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill for 
 altering the punishment in cases of High Treason. 
 The first Clause, by which it is enacted, that 
 the convicted or attainted person or persons 
 " shall severally be drawn to the place of exe- 
 
 VOL. II. C
 
 18 
 
 PUNISHMENT FOR HIGH TREASON. 
 
 cution pn a hurdle, and be there hanged by the 
 neck until he, she, or they be severally dead, and 
 that the body or bodies of such person or persons 
 shall be at the disposal of His Majesty and his 
 Successors," having- been read, Mr. Yorke moved, 
 as an Amendment, that after the words " hanged 
 by the neck until he, she, or they be severally 
 dead," there be added these words, " and be then 
 beheaded;" and that " the head or heads, and 
 body or bodies, of such person or persons, shall 
 be at the disposal of His Majesty and his Suc- 
 cessors." Mr. Yorke said, he should not propose 
 to strike out the Clause in the Bill, which gave 
 the King power by warrant to alter the punish- 
 ment to that of beheading, although, if the be- 
 heading was restored, that would hardly be ne- 
 cessary, as it was by remitting every part of the 
 sentence but beheading, that the punishment had 
 been sometimes mitigated by the Crown. 
 
 Sir Samuel Romilly. " Although I cannot ap- 
 prove of the Amendment of the Right Hon. Gen- 
 tleman, yet it is not my intention to oppose it. I 
 cannot think that any good effects are produced 
 by the disgusting spectacle which is now exhibited, 
 and which the Right Hon. Gentleman desires to 
 preserve, of holding up the bleeding head of the 
 Criminal to the view of the spectators. On the 
 contrary, I believe that the worst effects are pro- 
 duced by it. We are so constituted by nature, 
 that such spectacles of horror are seldom beheld 
 3
 
 PUNISHMENT FOR HIGH TREASON. 19 
 
 by any persons with impunity. I shall not how- 
 ever divide the Committee, as I have little pro- 
 spect of its being of any avail. The Right Hon. 
 Gentleman is, as I conceive, much mistaken in 
 supposing, that the beheading of traitors at pre- 
 sent takes place under the King's power to remit 
 part of the sentence, although that notion is cer- 
 tainly countenanced by Lord Coke, and indeed by 
 Lord Hale too. There are several instances of the 
 Crown ordering Women convicted of Treason to be 
 beheaded, although the sentence pronounced on 
 them was that of being burned alive. In the case 
 of Mrs. Lisle (who petitioned King James II. that 
 she might be beheaded), the only mercy for which 
 she presumed to hope, was, that she might be spared 
 the torture of being burned alive. The King pro- 
 fessed to doubt whether he had any power so to 
 alter the sentence ; and he did not grant the 
 prayer of the petition until he had consulted the 
 Judges, and they had removed his scruples. This 
 notion, indeed, of remitting a part of his sentence, 
 might be so used as to aggravate, instead of miti- 
 gating the sentence. As the Law now stands, the 
 Traitor is not to be beheaded until after he is em- 
 bowelled, and, consequently, until after he is 
 dead. To declare that he shall be beheaded while 
 he is alive, is in truth to alter the sentence, not to 
 remit a part of it. If the Crown were to remit 
 every thing but the embowelling, by which the 
 
 c2
 
 20 THE SLAVE TRADE. 
 
 criminal would have to suffer that punishment 
 while he was in full life, and before his sensibility 
 was at all deadened by strangulation, could that 
 be called a mitigation of the sentence? The truth 
 is, as Mr. Justice Foster has stated, that this pre- 
 rogative consists in substituting, with the consent 
 of the convict, a milder in the place of a more 
 severe punishment." 
 
 The Amendment was agreed to. 
 
 THE SLAVE TRADE. 
 
 June 28th, 1814. 
 
 MR. Homer moved that an Address be presented to 
 the Prince Regent, praying that His Royal Highness 
 would be pleased to give directions that there be 
 laid before the House Copies of all Representa- 
 tions made on the part of His Majesty's Govern- 
 ment during the late Negotiation for Peace, and 
 of all Communications which passed between His 
 Majesty's Minister and the Allied Powers, relative 
 to the Abolition of the African Slave Trade. 
 
 The Motion was opposed at some length by 
 Lord Castlereagh, to whom Sir Samuel Rom illy 
 replied as follows : 
 
 " To those Members who were present when it
 
 THE SLAVE TRADE. 21 
 
 was arranged in what order the business respect- 
 ing the Treaty should be brought before the 
 House, it cannot be necessary to point out the 
 injustice of the noble Lord's charge against my 
 honourable and learned Friend, of having brought 
 forward his Motion at an improper time. If he has 
 moved for these papers only twenty-four hours be- 
 fore the Treaty is to be taken into consideration, 
 it is because he has yielded to the wishes of others; 
 and has, for their convenience, and most especially 
 for the convenience of the noble Lord himself, post- 
 poned his Motion. It was desired by my honour- 
 able Friend, who sits behind me*, that his intended 
 Address, which was yesterday unanimously voted 
 by the House, should precede my learned Friend's 
 Motion for Papers : this was the wish, too, of the 
 noble Lord, expressed by him in his place; and 
 he cannot have forgotten the reason he assigned 
 for it, namely, that he doubted not, that, in the 
 debate upon the Address, he should convince my 
 learned Friend, that his Motion was unnecessary. 
 The Address would have been moved for, a week 
 ago, but for the noble Lord's indisposition. It 
 was on his account alone that it was postponed to 
 yesterday. The noble Lord was requested to de- 
 fer the discussion of the Treaty for a few days; 
 but upon this he was inexorable. Though no pos- 
 sible inconvenience could attend the delay, he in- 
 
 * Mr. Wilbci force. 
 
 c3
 
 22 THE SLAVE TRADE. 
 
 sisted that the Treaty should be taken into consi- 
 deration to-morrow. And after all this, and when 
 it has been at his request, and for his personal con- 
 venience, and because he will not put off his own 
 Motion, even for four-and-twenty hours, that this 
 debate comes so close upon the consideration of 
 the. Treaty, the noble Lord is unjust enough to 
 impute blame to my learned Friend, for not 
 bringing on his Motion sooner. In the same spirit, 
 and in a style of great exaggeration, he says, that 
 the Treaty has been lying a whole month upon the 
 table before these Papers are called for, although 
 at the moment when I am speaking, a month has 
 not elapsed since the Treaty, which bears date 
 only the 30th of May, was signed, and although 
 it was not till the 3d of the present month that 
 this House was informed from the Throne, that it 
 would attend to our wishes on this important part 
 of the negotiation. 
 
 " I certainly shall not, Sir, by complimenting 
 the noble Lord and his colleagues for their since- 
 rity, and their services in the cause of the Abolition 
 of the Slave Trade, provoke the same extraordi- 
 nary return as my learned Friend has experienced; 
 and as little shall I be deterred by the high and 
 presumptuous tone which the noble Lord has this 
 day assumed, from expressing my strong disappro- 
 bation of that article in the Treaty he has con- 
 cluded, which relates to that odious Trade. If I 
 knew, indeed, what claims the Ministers had to
 
 THE SLAVE TRADE. 23 
 
 praise upon this subject, I would not rfefuse to do 
 them justice, even though my commendations 
 were to be met with the same disdain as my 
 learned Friend's ; but I am really at a loss to 
 conjecture on what those claims can be founded ; 
 and recollecting, as I do, in what manner, and to 
 what an extent, the Slave Trade has of late years 
 been carried on by Portugal, while the eminent 
 services we had rendered that State gave us so 
 good a right to require the total sacrifice of it on 
 her part, I can see no reason to applaud His 
 Royal Highness's Ministers, either for the zeal or 
 the success of their exertions. 
 
 " It is impossible, I know, to speak of this 
 article of the Treaty, in the severe, but just terms, 
 which in my opinion it deserves, without incur- 
 ring the imputation of acting with party views. 
 Conscious that I am not in the smallest degree 
 influenced upon this occasion by such motives, I 
 regard all such imputations with contempt ; but it 
 may be well for those who are forward to cast 
 them, to recollect that party is not the exclusive 
 reproach of Opposition, and to consider, whether 
 they, who defend and applaud in public what, 
 in the secret of their own bosoms, they utterly 
 reprobate and condemn, are themselves exempt 
 from that party-spirit with which they suppose 
 others to be infected. 
 
 " The noble Lord objects to the production of 
 the Papers moved for, because this article cannot, 
 
 c 4
 
 24 
 
 THE SLAVE TRADE. 
 
 he says, be properly estimated, when taken dis- 
 connected from the rest of the Treaty and from 
 the whole negotiation ; and yet the noble Lord 
 was content last night to enter into his justifica- 
 tion upon this single article, and to postpone the 
 rest of the Treaty to a future discussion ; and well, 
 indeed, may this part of the Treaty, from its 
 higher importance, and as being the only subject 
 of negotiation upon which this and the other 
 House of Parliament thought it right to interfere 
 with the executive power before the measure was 
 concluded, challenge a distinct and independent 
 examination. 
 
 " We are not, the noble Lord tells us, aware 
 of all the difficulties which, upon this article, he 
 had to contend with. We must not imagine, he 
 says, that the French ascribe to us, all the merit 
 which we claim for our Abolition of the Slave 
 Trade. They do not give us credit for all that 
 humanity and that love of justice which we pre- 
 tend to. They doubt our sincerity, and not the 
 common people only, but persons of a higher 
 order; and even those, as he plainly gives us to 
 understand, with whom he had to negotiate, 
 entertained that doubt. It would be highly inte- 
 resting to gain a sight of the papers, if it were 
 only to observe how the noble Lord repelled that 
 foul and unjust suspicion. No person better than 
 himself, who had, to the very last, in this House, 
 resisted the Abolition, could have assured them
 
 THE SLAVK TRADE. 25 
 
 of the perfect sincerity of those who had so long 
 persevered in that just and righteous cause, and 
 who, at the last, owed their glorious triumph to 
 the strong sense and feelings of the nation loudly 
 and repeatedly declared. 
 
 " The proofs of our sincerity are so many and 
 so powerful, that the noble Lord cannot fail to 
 have pressed them irresistibly upon his opponents. 
 If to have relinquished this Trade, when we al- 
 most singly, of all the nations of the earth, might 
 have carried it on ; and when we might have pro- 
 secuted it to a greater extent, and with a much 
 greater profit, than we or any other country had 
 ever before derived from it ; if to have perse- 
 vered steadily for seven years in this self-denial, 
 and never to have shown the least symptom of au 
 inclination to yield to the strong temptation, 
 which this lucrative monopoly was holding out; 
 if facts like these left France unconvinced, then, 
 indeed, is she not open to conviction. 
 
 " But what is the course which the noble 
 Lord has pursued ? To prove how much we are 
 in earnest on this important point, he has, on be- 
 half of the British nation, affixed his signature 
 to a Treaty, which, after recognizing the injustice 
 and barbarity of the Trade, contains a stipula- 
 tion, that for five years it shall be carried on. To 
 remove all doubt of our perfect sincerity, he 
 makes us parties to a convention, by which, with 
 fine professions of a holy regard for justice and
 
 26 THE SLAVE TRADE. 
 
 humanity, we sanction, for a certain definite pe- 
 riod, the practice of every species of oppression, 
 robbery, and murder. What better plan could 
 he have adopted, if his object had been to convert 
 suspicion into proof, and to put into the hands of 
 our detractors the formal and sealed evidence of 
 our baseness and hypocrisy ? 
 
 " What a melancholy prospect too does this 
 French notion of our insincerity, thus confirmed 
 by the noble Lord, afford, with respect to the 
 stipulation, that at the end of five years the 
 Trade by France shall altogether cease ! Our only 
 object being to gain some credit to ourselves, and 
 to appear to all Europe the seeming champions of 
 justice and humanity, the French are not unwill- 
 ing to gratify our criminal vanity, and have, 
 therefore, amused us with a declaration, that, 
 after five years, they will cease to be traders in 
 men a declaration in which they have just as 
 much sincerity as they impute to us ; and having 
 secured to themselves a Trade, which they know 
 will continue after the stipulated period shall have 
 elapsed, they pride themselves, no doubt, upon 
 having met this nation of dissemblers with their 
 own arts of dissimulation. 
 
 " Amongst other difficulties in the negotiation, 
 France, we are told, would not submit to the 
 humiliation of having the performance of a moral 
 duty imposed on her. The cession, or the reten- 
 tion of conquered province?, might well be sub-
 
 THE SLAVE TRADE. 27 
 
 jects of negotiation, without imputation upon 
 a nation's honour; but to exact that the rules of 
 natural justice should be observed, and to enforce a 
 moral principle at the point of the bayonet, implies 
 a species of degradation. I am unable (I confess 
 it) to enter into these diplomatic refinements ; but, 
 if there be humiliation in stipulating not to carry 
 on a trade repugnant to humanity and justice, 
 that humiliation France has submitted to, since 
 she has engaged, after five years, to renounce 
 the Trade for ever ; and how the honour of that 
 nation would have been more deeply affected by 
 an immediate renunciation than by one, which 
 is to be preceded by five years of licensed de- 
 vastation, piracy, and murder, the noble Lord 
 has left wholly unexplained. To .me, indeed, it 
 appears that the negotiation might have been 
 conducted on this point in a manner the most 
 honourable to both nations. The Trade does not, 
 at present, exist for either. With England it has 
 ceased for the last seven years, by our own vo- 
 Juntary renunciation of it. With France it has 
 ceased for upwards of twenty years, by the pecu- 
 liar circumstances in which the war had placed 
 her. France and England might have treated 
 upon this subject on equal terms. Each might 
 have contracted with the other, that this odious 
 Traffic should be revived by neither, and a treaty 
 might have been concluded more glorious for 
 both, than any that has been recorded in the 
 annals of mankind.
 
 28 THE SLAVE TRADE. 
 
 " The prejudices of the French, the noble Lord 
 says, were to be attended to. That they have 
 not at once adopted our opinions, cannot surprise 
 us. We were long before we acted on them our- 
 selves. Having been nearly twenty years abo- 
 lishing this Trade, can we complain that France 
 requires an interval of only five to prepare for its 
 abolition? But when this question is asked, it 
 should be recollected what the obstacles were 
 which, in this country, so long retarded the ac- 
 complishing that great act of justice. They were 
 obstacles which have no present existence in 
 France, but which arc preposterously, under the 
 operation of this Treaty, to be created, in order, as 
 we learn from the noble Lord, that by the slow 
 progress of reason they may be in time overcome. 
 The extensive influence of Liverpool and Bristol, 
 and other great trading towns, opposed difficulties 
 with us which it required much time and patience 
 to remove. Happily no such influence now exists 
 in France, but it seems that by the revival of the 
 Trade, such an influence is to be generated, and 
 to be fostered. Let the cause of humanity, the 
 noble Lord says, be promoted in France by ex- 
 actly the same means as it was in England. In 
 other words, let Nantes and Bourdeaux, and 
 other maritime towns, become the Bristols and 
 Liverpools of France; let large capitals be em- 
 barked in the Trade ; let the support of many 
 thousands of individuals be made to depend on its 
 continuance ; enlist the activity and zeal of corn-
 
 THE SLAVE TRADE. 29 
 
 mercial enterprise and adventure against you ; 
 multiply without number the enemies to the abo- 
 lition, and then wisely trust to reason to refute 
 their arguments and silence their clamours. Em- 
 body against you the most uncontrollable passions, 
 and strongest interests, and most formidable com- 
 binations of men, and then calmly appeal to ar- 
 gument, to philosophy, and to religion, to dis- 
 perse and to disarm them. Expect that some 
 Clarkson will appear in France, who will consume 
 his valuable life in the service of the most oppress- 
 ed and despised of his fellow-creatures. Wait till 
 some Wilberforce shall arise, who, with unex- 
 ampled perseverance in spite of clamour, and ob- 
 loquy, and ridicule, will maintain his steady 
 course, till he sees the great object of his life ac- 
 complished. Rely upon the slow but certain ef- 
 fects of free discussion in popular assemblies, and 
 by an unrestrained press ; and, till all these causes 
 shall have fully operated, be content that the work 
 of death and devastation shall go freely on upon 
 the shores of Africa. 
 
 " With us a most formidable obstacle to the 
 speedy abolition of the Slave Trade existed in the 
 strong and inveterate prejudice entertained by the 
 proprietors of West Indian estates, that its sud- 
 den abolition must be soon followed by the de- 
 struction of their property. Their terrified ima- 
 ginations painted to them insurrections breaking 
 out in all the islands, and involving their planta- 
 tions in one common ruin ; or if, contrary to all
 
 30 THE SLAVE TRADE. 
 
 expectation, they should escape this sudden de- 
 struction, yet they foretold the gradual but certain 
 waste of their slaves, the inevitable and rapidly 
 increasing depopulation of the colonies by disease 
 and death, without the possibility, when all supply 
 of fresh Negroes was denied, of ever repairing the 
 growing evil. This obstacle, once so gigantic, the 
 noble Lord had it in his power in an instant to 
 dispel. He had only to direct the view of the 
 French negotiators to the large and valuable colo- 
 nies which he was restoring to them by the Treaty, 
 and which, under the abolition, had been for years 
 in the enjoyment of perfect internal tranquillity, 
 improved cultivation, and increasing population 
 and prosperity. 
 
 " An argument, which in this country we heard 
 often, and too successfully used against the aboli- 
 tion, is, that the Trade, though renounced by us, 
 would still be carried on by other and rival States ; 
 arid that we should see them extending their com- 
 merce, increasing their wealth, and improving 
 their maritime resources, at our expense, while the 
 cause of humanity was' in no degree promoted, 
 and not one African the less would be torn from his 
 native land. Many thousands have been the lives 
 which have fallen a sacrifice to this pernicious ar- 
 gument. Against the noble Lord, however, it 
 was an argument which cannot have been urged 
 with success ; for it could not be doubted, that the 
 powerful voice, and more powerful example of 
 France, added to those of Great Britain, must
 
 THE SLAVE TRADE. 31 
 
 have commanded the total abolition of this nefa- 
 rious Trade, by the general consent of all the 
 Powers of Europe. 
 
 " Let us not, then, be told, that in desiring 
 time to prepare for the abolition, France is only 
 following the example we have set her. France, it 
 must be again observed, is not required to abolish 
 the Trade, but not to embark in it anew ; and, 
 with all the difficulties which the Abolitionists had 
 to encounter here ; with all the cause of just re- 
 proach, which certainly belongs to us, for having 
 been so tardy in effecting what justice and religion, 
 and our national honour, so long, so loudly, and 
 so imperatively called for ; yet it cannot be denied, 
 that from the first moment when the attention of 
 the public was awakened to the subject, there 
 never was a time when this nation would have 
 consented to incur the enormous guilt of creating 
 such a traffic. 
 
 " But although France is to revive the Trade, 
 it is only for five years that it is to be revived. 
 Not, indeed, that there is any positive stipulation 
 that at the end of that "period it shall absolutely 
 cease ; but, if I have rightly understood the 
 noble Lord, according to his construction of the 
 Treaty, France merely engages, that after the five 
 years, she will, by an act of her own, utterly re- 
 nounce all commerce in Slaves ; and upon this 
 assurance the noble Lord relies. Fie really be- 
 lieves that the French nation, who, now that they
 
 32 THE SLAVE TRADE. 
 
 are yet strangers to the Trade, except as they have 
 heard and read of it, and are capable, like impar- 
 tial and philosophical observers, to estimate it 
 justly, are not only not deterred by the horrors 
 which it presents from embarking in it, but are 
 even eager to plunge into this sea of blood, will, 
 when they are once deeply and earnestly engaged in 
 it, and are largely enriching themselves with its 
 guilty profits, have the generosity and magnani- 
 mity to relinquish it for ever. 
 
 {i In the mean time, and when the five years 
 shall have expired, numerous difficulties, which 
 do not now exist, will have arisen to obstruct the 
 performance of their engagement. How differ- 
 ently circumstanced will France then be from what 
 she is at present ! Great capitals will be embark- 
 ed in the Trade ; numerous vessels will be employ- 
 ed in it ; many thousands of individuals will have 
 accustomed themselves to look to it for subsistence 
 or support. France, too, will probably have en- 
 gaged in, and long prosecuted her schemes for the 
 reconquest of St. Domingo; and projects on this 
 head have been talked of (but which, I trust, are 
 not really entertained), the mere mention of which 
 chills the heart with horror. When all these 
 changes shall have taken place, by what arguments 
 shall we persuade France to be faithful to her en- 
 gagements? It cannot be by insisting on the great 
 principles of justice and humanity. You have 
 yourselves, she will reply, by the very Treaty
 
 THE SLAVE TRADE. 33 
 
 which you require us to fulfil, admitted that jus- 
 tice and humanity must sometimes yield to expe- 
 diency ; and the present expediency is of a far 
 higher nature than that which prevailed when you 
 concluded the Treaty with us. We had then few 
 sacrifices to make ; we must now ruin the fortunes 
 of thousands, who have themselves well-founded 
 claims upon our humanity. We have reconquered 
 St. Domingo, but it has been after a long and ar- 
 duous struggle, which has cost us innumerable 
 lives. We have expended immense treasures, and 
 have consumed the flower of our armies ; and now 
 that at such a price we have recovered, what may 
 be to us the most important of our foreign posses- 
 sions, you would fain persuade us to retain it just 
 as war has left it, with its wasted plantations and 
 desolated fields, a barren and depopulated island, 
 because your humanity revolts at our supplying it 
 with Negroes. That humanity would better have 
 proved itself to be sincere, by insisting at first 
 upon an immediate and perpetual Abolition, in- 
 stead of suffering us to shed so much blood, and 
 to waste such important resources, for the avowed 
 purpose of re-establishing our valuable plantations, 
 and then, when the season has at last arrived for 
 repairing the mischief which it was well known 
 must precede the benefits we had in view, endea- 
 vouring to prevent us from reaping the fruits of 
 our dangers and exertions. 
 
 " I confess that I deeply lament, that five years 
 
 VOL. II.
 
 34 THE SLAVE TRADE. 
 
 have been mentioned in the Treaty as the period at 
 which the Trade is definitely to cease. Being fully 
 convinced, for the reasons I have given, that the 
 Trade will not end when that period arrives, I can- 
 not but think, that the fixing it now as the mo- 
 ment of its termination, will only have the effect 
 of giving a wider range and additional vigour and 
 spirit to the trade at its commencement, and of 
 rendering those, who engage in it, more earnest in 
 their pursuits, and less under the control of any 
 moral restraint. The traffic, no doubt, will be 
 entered upon with all the eager spirit of adven- 
 ture with which a new trade is always received ; 
 and at the same time the adventurers in it, under- 
 standing that it is to be but of short duration, will 
 be disposed to profit to the utmost of the golden 
 opportunity while it lasts. Intent on making their 
 fortunes, they will persuade themselves that not a 
 moment is to be lost ; and the scruples which they 
 might have entertained at the fraud, and rapine, 
 and bloodshed which they will meet with in their 
 way, will be lulled by the reflection, that those 
 evils are only transient and temporary. 
 
 " It was with great surprise that I heard the 
 noble Lord declare, that he really believed that 
 the Trade would last only for five years, and that 
 it would be carried on till that period with the 
 honest expectation that at its arrival it would 
 cease; for in saying this, the noble Lord, surely, 
 could not mean to intimate, .that it would be pro-
 
 THE SLAVE TRADE. 35 
 
 secuted on a larger scale, and assume a more 
 atrocious character than it ever yet had done ; and 
 yet I cannot recollect the arguments used by the 
 noble Lord himself upon former occasions, and 
 suppose him unconscious that this must be the 
 case. In a debate, which I remember took place 
 in the year 1806, when this House resolved, that 
 it would, at a time to be afterwards fixed, abolish 
 the Trade, the noble Lord, as well as the Right ho- 
 nourable Gentleman * who sits near him, strenu- 
 ously opposed that resolution, upon this, amongst 
 other grounds, that the fixing a future time for the 
 Abolition must always have the effect of giving new 
 life and a wider extension to the Trade while it 
 lasted ; and experience, the noble Lord observed, 
 had shown, that the fixing such periods always 
 afforded a rich harvest to Liverpool. By the 
 noble Lord's own reasoning, therefore, he has 
 consented to a renewal of this detestable traffic, 
 under circumstances which must add to its hor- 
 rors, and extend its devastation ; and that very 
 increased activity and extension must, when the 
 stated period for its termination arrives, make its 
 termination impossible. 
 
 " That the British nation should be party to 
 a Treaty, by which a traffic in human beings is 
 sanctioned, is alone a sufficient cause of reproach ; 
 
 * Mr. Bathurst. 
 D 2
 
 36 THE SLAVE TRADE. 
 
 but to feel the whole extent of the disgrace which 
 this Treaty brings upon us, it is necessary to con- 
 sider what the real nature of this traffic is. The 
 Slave Trade is, indeed, no where mentioned but 
 with some epithet which expresses the horror that 
 it inspires. It is described as inhuman, as san- 
 guinary, as detestable, or by some other vague 
 and general term of reprobation ; but such terms 
 can convey but a very inadequate notion of the 
 real horrors of this Trade, to those nations which 
 are happily strangers to it in practice. But, in 
 this country, it is in no such imperfect and indefi- 
 nite mode that this horrible traffic, this foul re- 
 proach to civilized society, is known. What the 
 Trade really is, we have fully ascertained. We 
 have, as it were, reckoned up and taken the exact 
 dimensions of all the miseries and agonies it in- 
 flicts. What might seem to others to be the 
 heightenings and amplifications of eloquence, we, 
 alas! know to be plain fact, incontestably proved. 
 We have made ourselves acquainted with the Trade 
 in its manifold, complicated, and unexaggerated 
 horrors. We have dared to scrutinize minutely 
 into every part of it. We have, by long and pa- 
 tient examinations of numerous witnesses, traced 
 in the very heart of Africa, the superstitions and 
 barbarism, in the darkness of which its nations 
 are still enveloped, to this powerful cause. On 
 those shores which have intercourse with Euro- 
 peans, we have almost with our own eyes beheld 
 3
 
 THK SLAVE TRADE. 37 
 
 the wasted fields, and ruined villages, and flying 
 inhabitants, which with certainty denote that slave- 
 ships are hovering on the coast. We have even 
 descended into the holds of the ships, and have 
 had the courage to survey, and to expose to open 
 day, the chained and crowded victims, writhing 
 with agony, or wasting with disease, during the 
 protracted sufferings of the middle passage. We 
 have traced up to this, as their source, all those 
 habitual severities and cruelties, and that constant 
 contempt of human life and human misery, which 
 distinguish West Indian from every other species 
 of slavery ; and it is this Trade, thus known to us 
 in the full extent of all its abominations ; this 
 system of fraud and oppression, and rapine, and 
 cruelty, and murder, examined into, understood, 
 scrutinized, exposed, and execrated, to which the 
 noble Lord has, by this Treaty, given the sanction 
 of the British name ! 
 
 " If the Treaty had been in other respects less 
 favourable to us, we should at least have had the 
 consolation of reflecting, that we had not profited 
 by this dereliction of all honourable principle, and 
 that we had not sold our consent to such enormous 
 injustice ; but with the stipulations in our favour 
 which we know that it contains ; with St. Lucie 
 and Tobago, and the Isle of France retained by 
 us; with the engagement, that no fortifications 
 shall be erected in the French settlements in India, 
 and with the other benefits which we have bar- 
 
 D3
 
 00 THE SLAVE TRADE. 
 
 gained for, how can we defend ourselves from self- 
 reproach, or silence our consciences, which tell us 
 that these concessions have been purchased for us 
 with the blood of Africa? 
 
 " In consideration of our receiving these bene- 
 fits, we consent that France shall carry on the 
 Slave Trade; and to enable her the more suc- 
 cessfully to carry it on, we restore to her her 
 ancient factories on the coast of Africa. She is 
 to be reinstated in Goree and Senegal, almost 
 in the centre of that large district from which 
 this fatal Trade had been wholly extirpated, and 
 where we saw the dawn breaking of that happier 
 condition which the natives were beginning to 
 enjoy. This is the prosperous region which we 
 consent to abandon to the ravages of the slave- 
 merchants of France. Like faithful stewards, we 
 have improved the country for them while it has 
 been in our hands; we have increased its popu- 
 lation; we have encouraged its inhabitants to 
 settle in its peaceful villages ; we have, by the in- 
 struction we have given them, and the confidence 
 we have taught them to place in Christians, 
 soothed them into a fatal security; and we deliver 
 up to its bitterest enemies this improving territory, 
 well stocked with plentiful crops of Negroes, and 
 supplied for its savage hunters with abundance of 
 human game. The very benefits we have con- 
 ferred on these unhappy beings, the comforts to 
 which we have accustomed them, and the know-
 
 THE SLAVE TRADE. 39 
 
 ledge We have imparted to them, will only em- 
 bitter their misfortunes, and make them feel more 
 acutely the full extent of the misery and degra- 
 dation which now await them. 
 
 " But turning our view from Africa, to consider 
 how the West Indian islands we have ceded will 
 be affected by this article of the Treaty, I cannot, 
 I confess, but entertain great doubt whether we 
 had any right to make such an alteration in the 
 condition of its inhabitants as this stipulation must 
 necessarily effect. The great population of all the 
 islands consists, we must recollect, of negroes and 
 slaves. This population, notwithstanding their 
 degraded and unhappy state, have claims upon us 
 to protect them, and have rights which we are 
 bound to maintain. Though the slaves of their 
 masters, they are the subjects of the Crown, and 
 are entitled to the protection of the law. The 
 Abolition of the Slave Trade has done much to 
 meliorate the condition of these unhappy men, 
 and has mitigated the character of their- slavery. 
 To accomplish this, indeed, was$ I think I have 
 heard my honourable Friend say, the principal object 
 which he had in view when he first entertained the 
 design of putting an end to this detestable Trade. 
 The calamities of Africa, and the horrors of the 
 middle passage, had not at first presented them- 
 selves to his view. He foresaw that West Indian 
 slaves would be less likely to be worn down by 
 continual and exhausting labours, or to be sacri- 
 
 D4
 
 40 THE SLAVE TRADE. 
 
 need by sudden gusts of passion, or deliberate re- 
 sentment in those on whom they were entirely 
 dependent, when their loss could not be replaced 
 by the never-failing supply which the Slave Trade 
 afforded, To some degree what he foresaw has 
 come to pass. Wretched, indeed, is their con- 
 dition still; but it is less wretched than it was, 
 when fresh cargoes of slaves were every year ex- 
 posed to sale in the markets. We have had, 
 indeed, some remarkable proofs of the improve- 
 ment of their condition, Not the least of them is, 
 that since the Abolition, we have seen what no 
 eye before had ever beheld, and no ear had ever 
 heard, a white proprietor brought to trial for the 
 murder of his slave, convicted, and .publicly exe- 
 cuted. All improvement, however, with them, is 
 now at an end. By the terms of the Treaty, we 
 have not merely transferred the dominion over 
 these colonies to a foreign state, but we have in 
 effect agreed that their inhabitants shall pass 
 under a more cruel bondage than that which they 
 groan under at present, since we have consented 
 that there shall be withdrawn from them the most 
 effectual of all restraints upon those wanton abuses 
 of power, to which men in a state of flomestic 
 slavery must be constantly exposed. 
 
 " When applied to the island of Guadaloupe, 
 these considerations acquire tenfold force, and 
 place the conduct of Ministers in a most extra- 
 ordinary point of view. In the last year we ceded
 
 THE SLAVE TRADE. 41 
 
 that island to Sweden, but under an express sti- 
 pulation that the Slave Trade should never be 
 carried on there. Sweden could not, without a 
 breach of national faith, either by herself, or by 
 any other power to whom she might have trans- 
 ferred the colony, have polluted its shores with 
 this inhuman Traffic. But what we would not 
 allow Sweden to do, we do ourselves : we consent 
 that the island shall be given up to France, with- 
 out affording it any protection against the Slave 
 Trade. We make ourselves parties to a violation 
 of our own Treaty; and, without compunction, 
 sanction a breach of those conditions, which, with 
 such seeming anxiety, we had provided for the 
 happiness of the colony. 
 
 " But after all, we are told, that to submit to 
 all this, was matter of necessity; for on this point 
 France was determined not to yield. We had only 
 to choose, it seems, between permitting her to 
 carry on the Slave Trade or still prosecuting the 
 war ; and the noble Lord asks whether, for such 
 an object as that of putting an end to the Trade 
 five years sooner or later, we should have been 
 justified in prolonging such a contest, without the 
 assistance, too, of our allies ; and, he adds, with 
 Lord Wellington's army far advanced into France, 
 and wholly unsupported. But really, Sir, I can- 
 not think, that these difficulties presented them- 
 selves with quite so formidable an aspect as the 
 noble Lord would represent. I cannot forget that
 
 42 THE SLAVE TRADE. 
 
 he has himself assured us, that the Sovereigns,, our 
 allies, were sincerely and zealously desirous to 
 abolish the Slave Trade ; and when I recollect the 
 circumstances in which France stood, and the 
 extraordinary events which had preceded the 
 negotiation, I cannot persuade myself that Eng- 
 land was obliged to treat so much in the spirit of 
 a conquered country, that merely because France 
 was pleased to threaten a continuance of the war, 
 we were necessarily to relinquish the just demands 
 that we had made. The noble Lord must him- 
 self admit, that so high a tone, so unreasonably 
 assumed by France, could have afforded no jus- 
 tification for his yielding every thing, no matter 
 how unjust, which it might have been her pleasure 
 to exact. If she had presumed to dictate to us, 
 as the indispensable price of peace, that Gibraltar 
 should be ceded to her, the noble Lord assuredly 
 would not have thought a prospect of the con- 
 tinuance of war a sufficient reason for making a 
 sacrifice to France of that proud monument of our 
 glory; and yet, for no better reason, he has sacri- 
 ficed to her what, in my judgment, was a monu- 
 ment of much greater glory to the British name. 
 
 "But who, indeed, can be credulous enough to 
 believe, that we ever were reduced to the neces- 
 sity of relinquishing either peace or the Aboli- 
 tion of this Traffic ? If we were to admit that 
 France, in the situation in which she stood, could, 
 with any appearance of reason, have peremptorily
 
 THE SLAVE TRADE. 43 
 
 insisted on carrying on the Trade, yet was it not 
 most obvious, that we had a right to retain the 
 colonies which conquest had made our own, unless 
 France would consent, that from them, at least, the 
 Trade should continue, as it then was, wholly ex- 
 cluded? Who, indeed, can look at the Treaty, 
 and observe what we have retained, and what we 
 have stipulated for, without being convinced that 
 we never were reduced to this pretended necessity? 
 But we preferred, it seems, Tobago and St. Lucie, 
 and the other comparatively light advantages 
 which we have secured for ourselves, to the ho- 
 nourable duty which was imposed upon us, of ef- 
 facing for ever the foulest stain that had ever 
 blotted the character of Europeans and of Chris- 
 tians. 
 
 " Long and lasting must be the reproach which 
 this has drawn upon us. The noble Lord has 
 complained, indeed, of the melancholy suggestions 
 of my honourable Friend, with which, he says, he 
 has endeavoured at this hour of congratulation, to 
 dash the cup of enjoyment from the lips of the 
 nation. I confess, it appears to me, that this is 
 the moment, of all others, when it most becomes 
 us to appreciate the real nature of this article of 
 the Treaty, and to consider in what light it places 
 us as a nation. It is now, while our ears are 
 vibrating with shouts of triumph, and while our 
 imaginations are still dazzled with the splendour 
 of our late rejoicings, that it behoves us to exa-
 
 44 THE SLAVE TRADK. 
 
 mine the part that we have acted in the great 
 events which have taken place, and to consider 
 whether we have fulfilled the high destiny to 
 which God seemed to have called us; whether, on 
 the contrary, we have not basely deserted the 
 cause of our fellow-creatures which was com- 
 mitted to our hands; and whether, while we are 
 drinking in this intoxicating cup, and feasting at 
 the banquet which is set before us, some unper- 
 ceived hand is not inscribing on the wall, the 
 sentence of our condemnation. 
 
 " To obtain the concurrence of other States 
 in the Abolition of the Slave Trade, has long been 
 an object of earnest solicitude to this House, even 
 before we had passed an Act to abolish it for our- 
 selves ; but when, under the administration of 
 1806, no doubt was entertained that such a law 
 would speedily be enacted, this House presented 
 an Address to the Crown, entreating His Majesty 
 to take measures for establishing, by negotiation 
 with foreign powers, a consent and agreement for 
 abolishing the African Slave Trade, and repre- 
 senting to His Majesty, that this House felt the 
 justice and honour of the nation to be deeply and 
 peculiarly involved in that great object; and we 
 were assured, by His Majesty, that these our 
 wishes should be attended to. 
 
 " In 1810, this House again approached the 
 Throne, and, after expressing its deep regret that 
 the efforts which the King had made to induce
 
 THE SLAVE TRADE. 45 
 
 foreign powers to concur in relinquishing this dis- 
 graceful commerce, had been attended with so 
 little success, earnestly besought His Majesty to 
 persevere in those measures which might tend to 
 bring about so desirable an end. The same gra- 
 cious answer was returned to these renewed en- 
 treaties, the same royal pledge was again given, 
 that it should not be through any omission on the 
 part of the Crown, that our hopes and wishes 
 should be disappointed. 
 
 " At last an opportunity presented itself for 
 realizing those hopes, and gratifying those wishes, 
 such as the most sanguine could hardly have pic- 
 tured to themselves in their fondest dreams of 
 prosperity; a concurrence of circumstances the 
 most fortunate, I should rather say, the most pro- 
 vidential, for rendering this great benefit to our 
 fellow-creatures and to posterity ; such an oppor- 
 tunity for concluding the most glorious treaty 
 that ever was entered into between rival and con- 
 tending nations, as might have warmed the coldest 
 heart, and have inspired the most vulgar rnind 
 with a noble and virtuous ambition. 
 
 " That such a crisis had arrived, we knew could 
 not escape the observation of any man ; that it 
 would pass away unimproved, we did not suppose 
 possible; and yet, that there might be no omission 
 on our part, that we might, as it were, make as- 
 surance doubly sure, that where such important 
 interests were at stake, there might not be even
 
 46 THE SLAVE TRADE. 
 
 the appearance of our being, in the smallest de- 
 gree, wanting to ourselves and to mankind, this 
 House unanimously resolved again to address the 
 Throne, and to represent to it all that the occa- 
 sion demanded of us, the right which our situation 
 gave us to insist upon this point with the enemy, 
 the evils that would result, and the dreadful re- 
 sponsibility we should incur, if it were given up, 
 and the solemn assurances and pledges which the 
 Crown had repeatedly given us, and upon which 
 we had firmly relied. And after all this, possessed 
 of such advantages, strengthened by such an ad- 
 dress, and stimulated by such considerations, what 
 is the Treaty which the Ministers have concluded ? 
 One that disappoints all our hopes, blasts all our 
 prospects, seals our perpetual disgrace, and leaves 
 us to deplore, that we have lost an opportunity 
 of benefiting mankind, and ennobling ourselves, 
 such as the world will, probably, never again afford ! 
 " That I take this view of the subject will, I 
 know, by some persons, be ascribed to the spirit 
 of party; but thinking, as in my conscience I do, 
 that in concluding this Treaty, every moral and 
 religious duty has been disregarded, ought I, from 
 any such trivial consideration, and, because I can- 
 not blame the measure without censuring the men 
 who are the authors of it, to refrain from express- 
 ing my real opinion ? Let me rather again remind 
 those who, thinking as ill of the Treaty as I do, 
 are yet so fur influenced by their partiality to 
 
 4
 
 THE SLAVE TRADE. 47 
 
 Ministers, that they will either observe a criminal 
 silence, or give their sanction to it by their votes, 
 that they are, indeed, acting from the worst of 
 party motives ; and let me caution all such per- 
 sons how, at any future time, they receive favours 
 at the hands of Ministers, lest their consciences 
 should tell them that such favours have been ob- 
 tained at the expense of. the happiness and blood 
 of Africa. 
 
 " My honourable Friend *, indeed, who prac* 
 tises every Christian virtue, has expressed, in 
 strong terms, his disappointment and regret at 
 this Treaty; but yet he has the exemplary for- 
 bearance, while he deeply deplores, not to cen- 
 sure, the conduct of the negotiator. A most 
 remarkable instance of Christian charity it un- 
 questionably is ; for there is no individual in His 
 Majesty's dominions, who, if in considerations of 
 such a superior importance, we could be allowed 
 to mix any thing which merely affected ourselves, 
 has more reason to complain than my honourable. 
 Friend. There is no man living whom it can 
 have robbed of a larger portion of happiness. Af- 
 ter devoting the best part of his virtuous life to 
 this great object; when by long-continued and 
 unwearied exertions, after repeated disappoint- 
 ments, and by a perseverance without example, 
 he had, at last, at a mature period of his life, 
 accomplished the object to which he had devoted 
 
 * Mr. Wilberforce,
 
 48 THE SLAVE TRADE. 
 
 all the faculties of his mind; when he was begin- 
 ning to reap the full rewards of his long labours, 
 rewards the most congenial to his heart, and the 
 best adapted to services such as his, the satis- 
 faction at seeing the progress of the good, of which 
 he had been, in so great a degree, the author; 
 while he was every year receiving from Africa and 
 from the West Indies, the tidings of the improved 
 condition of his fellow-creatures ; while he saw in 
 Africa the dawnings of civilization, the calm and 
 the tranquillity which reigned in their contented 
 villages, the instruction which was afforded to 
 their youths, and the comforts which the light of 
 true Religion was every day diffusing among the 
 natives ; and, on the other hand, in the West In- 
 dies, the mitigation of the labours and sufferings 
 of the Negroes, and law extending its protection 
 to these unhappy outcasts of society; while he 
 was cheering his mind, long depressed by the 
 miseries which he had been coixipelled, for so 
 -many years, to dwell upon, witli the refreshing 
 sight of this comparative happiness, and was 
 eagerly looking forward to the further progress of 
 this great good, and was expecting, from still 
 greater improvements in the .moral existence of 
 those to whom he had already/- been so great a 
 benefactor, the best consolations of his declining 
 age ; what a prospect of the futi ire has the noble 
 Lord opened to him ! The sudd en revival of this 
 horrid Traffic, upon the largest sc: lie, and in its most
 
 THE SLAVE TRADE. 49 
 
 ferocious spirit ; all his exertions and his anxieties, 
 and his sacrifices of time, and health, and fortune, 
 endured in vain ; a renewal of the plunder, and 
 carnage, and devastation, which used to lay waste 
 the shores of Africa ; new fleets sailing across the 
 Atlantic, freighted with human misery in every 
 form and every degree ; new markets opened, in 
 which rational beings, like beasts of the field, are 
 to be again exposed to public sale; the revival of a 
 more severe and a more cruel species of bondage, 
 more exhausting toils, a lower species of degra- 
 dation, augmented tortures ; an aggravation of all 
 the anguish of body and mind, which wastes and 
 consumes so large a portion of our fellow-men; 
 and the sickening certainty, that all these com- 
 plicated evils tend to confirm, and perpetuate, 
 and aggravate each other, and that they forebode 
 scenes more dreadful even than those which they 
 exhibit ! 
 
 Such are the melancholy prospects which this 
 Treaty affords to those who had been earnest in 
 procuring the Abolition, and who were pleasing 
 themselves with the reflection of the great benefits 
 which they had obtained for mankind, or, in other 
 words, to the great majority of the British nation. 
 With these prospects before us, I cannot applaud 
 the Treaty. I am desirous, with my honourable 
 Friend, to have all the information that can throw 
 light upon the negotiation ; but if that information 
 is withheld, and I am compelled to decide with 
 , if. *
 
 50 THE MILITIA. 
 
 no other lights than I at present possess, I must 
 say, that the Treaty appears to me, as far as it 
 respects the Slave Trade, to be repugnant to jus- 
 tice and humanity, disgraceful to the British name, 
 and offensive in the sight of God. 
 
 THE MILITIA. 
 
 February 2Bth, 1815. 
 
 TH E Order of the Day having been read, Sir Sa- 
 muel Romilly rose, and spoke to the following 
 effect:^-" Sir, I shall offer no apology to the 
 House for renewing the Motion which I made in 
 the last Session relative to the continuation of the 
 Militia embodied in time of Peace. The import- 
 ance of the subject, and the consideration which 
 it deserves, must be fully felt and acknowledged 
 by every Member of this House. The circum- 
 stances, however, under which it is now brought 
 forward, are, in many respects, different from 
 those which attended the case on its discussion in 
 November. The definitive Treaty of Peace with 
 France had, at that period, been but recently 
 signed ; and the negotiations at Ghent were still 
 proceeding, with little hope of their speedy ter-
 
 THE MILITIA. 51 
 
 ruination. Those negotiations have been since 
 happily brought to a close ; and although the 
 Treaty has not yet received the ratification of the 
 President of the United States, there is little dan- 
 ger of the war with America being prolonged by 
 any refusal on his part. It is true, that several of 
 the Militia Regiments have been disbanded since I 
 first brought this question before the House; but 
 the circumstance of a part of that body remaining 
 embodied nine months after a Treaty which is 
 supposed to have secured the peace of Europe, 
 and when no symptom of rebellion or insurrection 
 exists in the Country, affords ample ground for 
 Parliamentary notice. 
 
 " The Militia Service exacts the severest sacri- 
 fices from the lower orders of the People. To the 
 opulent it is simply a Tax ; but to the poor it is a 
 compulsory personal service, under circumstances 
 of peculiar hardship, of separation from their 
 homes and families, of abandonment of their civil 
 occupations, of deprivation of civil privileges, and 
 of subjection to military law. It should, there- 
 fore, only be required when the exigencies of the 
 moment demand it ; when the State is in imme- 
 diate danger, when a foreign force has landed, 
 or threatens to land, or when an insurrection or 
 rebellion has actually broken out. The Consti- 
 tution also requires, that the exercise of the Royal 
 Prerogative of embodying the Militia, shall be ac- 
 companied by a declaration of the circumstances 
 
 E 2
 
 52 THE MILITIA. 
 
 which demand it ; that these circumstances shall 
 be immediately stated to Parliament, if sitting; 
 And, if not sitting, that it shall be summoned tOr- 
 gether for that purpose. Feeling as I do, upon 
 this subject, I consider it my public duty to 
 assert, that the Regiments remaining embodied, 
 are detained contrary to Law. To discover this 
 requires no great legal knowledge; and every 
 County Member is as competent to decide upon 
 the subject as the oldest Lawyers of the Crown. 
 But hqwever unconstitutional I may deem the 
 continuance of the Militia embodied in time of 
 Peace, I must protest against its being inferred as 
 the consequence of this doctrine, that persons enr 
 rolled in that body may quit their Regiments, or 
 are at liberty to disobey the orders of their Com- 
 manders. They have no right whatever to do so. 
 They are to serve ( . as long as the Militia shall 
 rCnain embodied,' the Legislature never having 
 intended to leave with the individuals constituting 
 that body, so dangerous a power as that of deter- 
 mining the exact moment at which the causes of 
 their enrolment may cease. 
 
 " Without entering into the history of the Mi- 
 litia in the earliest times, it will be sufficient to 
 state, that the King never had the power of 
 calling for the personal services of his subjects at 
 pleasure. The Statutes of Edward the Third and 
 of Henry the Fourth provided, that no man should 
 be compelled to. march out of his shire but in
 
 THE MILITIA. 53 
 
 Cases of urgent necessity, such as ' the sudden 
 coming of strange enemies into the realm *. f 
 After the Restoration of Charles the Second, va- 
 rious Acts were passed for the regulation of the 
 Militia, but none compelling them to leave their 
 own Counties, except in cases of actual invasion 
 or rebellion. Subsequent Statutes relative to the 
 Militia have proceeded upon the same principle. 
 The preamble of the 42d of the present King, 
 chapter 90, states, that it is of importance to the 
 internal defence of the Realm, that the Militia 
 should be embodied; and the eleventh section 
 enacts, that in all cases of actual invasion, or 
 upon imminent danger thereof, and in all cases of 
 rebellion and insurrection, it shall be lawful for 
 His Majesty to draw out and embody the Militia. 
 
 " But although the Legislature has been thus 
 jealous in specifying the causes for which the 
 Militia shall be called out, it has made no decla- 
 ration of the time when it is to be disembodied. 
 It is on this ground ; it is by taking advantage of 
 this omission, that Ministers have thought proper 
 to continue that Force on foot ; contending, that 
 the King having once called it out, may, in the 
 absence of any express legislative enactment to 
 the contrary, keep it embodied at pleasure, and, 
 that the only limit to this power, the only secu- 
 
 1 Ed. III. sec. ii. c. 5. 4 Hen. IV. c. 13. 
 E 3
 
 54 THE MILITIA. 
 
 rity of the subject against the abuse of the Royal 
 discretion, is the responsibility of his Advisers! 
 Sir, in opposition to this doctrine, I might main- 
 tain, that Laws are not always to be interpreted 
 according to their strict letter, but according to 
 their spirit, according to their true meaning and 
 intent. In the present case, however, there is 
 nothing even in the letter of the Law to autho- 
 rize the proceeding of Ministers. The Legislature 
 has specified the causes for calling out the Militia ; 
 and those causes (in the rational interpretation of 
 the Act) can alone warrant the continuance of it. 
 Cessante causd cessat eff'ecttts, is not only a rule of 
 Law, but a maxim of common sense. Undoubt- 
 edly, the Crown has a discretion in judging of 
 those causes, in determining whether they con- 
 tinue, or have ceased to exist. No one is at all 
 inclined to dispute this power. But when it is 
 clear to the conviction of every individual in the 
 kingdom, that these causes have all ceased, 
 when the fact is so self-evident, that even Minis- 
 ters will not venture to doubt it, then, I contend, 
 that there no longer remains any room for the 
 exercise of this discretion. If the Advisers of His 
 Royal Highness can say, that there exists the 
 slightest danger of Invasion from abroad, or of 
 Rebellion or Insurrection at home, they will, at 
 least, have a pretext for their recent conduct. 
 Sir, I repeat, that they dare not allege the exist- 
 ence of any such causes. Never was there a
 
 THB MILITIA. . 55 
 
 period of more general tranquillity than at the 
 present moment. 
 
 " It has been urged, however, that there is a 
 construction of this Law by usage. Sir, I defy 
 His Majesty's Advisers to produce a single in- 
 stance in which the Militia has been kept em- 
 bodied except in the time of actual War, and 
 when the enemy threatened to invade our coasts. 
 It was not kept embodied at the conclusion of the 
 American and French War in 1783. It was not 
 kept embodied at the conclusion of the last War. 
 And yet what were the circumstances under 
 which that Peace was made? Did any man ac- 
 quainted with the situation of the Country ima- 
 gine, that it was likely to be of long duration? 
 Can it be forgotten, that the man who was then 
 at the head of the French Government, under the 
 modest title of the First Consul, had been 
 strengthening himself with new alliances, and 
 was cherishing the most inveterate hatred towards 
 this Country ? And yet, with a knowledge of all 
 these circumstances, on the part of Government, 
 the Militia was disbanded! The Noble Lord in 
 whose department the matter now rests (Lord 
 Sidmouth), was then at the head of the Adminis- 
 tration ; but neither he nor those who acted with 
 him, dared to give such an interpretation to the 
 Law, as they have now thought proper to adopt. 
 What has occasioned this change of opinion in 
 Ministers ? Whether the exultation manifested at 
 
 4
 
 56 THE MILITIA. 
 
 the late Peace, has induced them to suppose, that 
 this is a favourable opportunity for exacting new 
 sacrifices from the People, I know not. Of this 
 alone I am certain, that no such construction as 
 that now contended for by Ministers, was ever 
 before given to the Militia Laws. 
 
 " Since this subject was last before the House, 
 I have had an opportunity of seeing the opinions 
 of the Law Officers 'of the Crown, of the Attorney 
 and Solicitor General, which have been read at 
 the heads of the different regiments, as decla- 
 ratory of the Law of the Land! Without any 
 personal disrespect for those Gentlemen, I must 
 still be allowed to say, that I should have pre- 
 ferred the opinions of any two other Barristers of 
 equal standing, not having the advantage of Royal 
 favour. The opinions of the latter would be en- 
 titled to more consideration, as being less likely 
 to be influenced by political feeling. What would 
 the House have thought of the opinion of Sir 
 John Finch in the case of Ship-money? Does 
 any one suppose, if his opinion had been taken on 
 that measure, that it would have been satisfactory 
 to the People? It was this circumstance, perhaps, 
 which induced Charles the First to resort, not to 
 the Law Officers of the Crown, but to the Judges 
 of the Land. Their authority was deemed indis- 
 pensable for sanctioning the imposition of Ship- 
 money with the appearance of Law. It is true, 
 that our present Ministers have not yet ventured
 
 THE MILITIA. 57 
 
 this length. They have not yet called on the 
 twelve Judges for their ex parte opinions of a case 
 which they might afterwards be compelled to 
 decide. Still, that the seal of judicial authority 
 may not be wholly wanting, that a greater 
 weight may be given to their proceedings than 
 can be supposed to result from the unsupported 
 opinion of an Attorney or Solicitor General, they 
 have favoured us with that of the Chief Justice of 
 Chester * ! The Chief Justice of Chester has pre- 
 judged a case which may hereafter come before 
 him in his judicial capacity. He has prejudged it, 
 too, on ex parte evidence, without hearing the 
 whole matter in dispute, without even attending 
 to the arguments of one of the contending parties ? 
 Nor is the time which Ministers have chosen for 
 procuring this opinion less objectionable. In the 
 case of Ship-money, the advice of the Judges was 
 called for to regulate the future measures of Go- 
 vernment : in the present instance, Ministers act 
 first, and call for advice afterwards. They keep the 
 Militia embodied, and then inquire whether they 
 are impeachable for what they have done. Is this 
 a mode calculated to procure from their legal Ad- 
 visers a free and uninfluenced opinion as to the 
 real state of the Law? 
 
 " The Circular Letter from the Secretary of 
 State to the Colonels of Militia, says, that some 
 
 * Sir William Garrow was, at the same time, both Attorney 
 General nnd Chief Justice of Chester.
 
 58 THE MILITIA. 
 
 doubts having been expressed as to the legality of 
 keeping the Militia embodied, the Question has 
 been referred to the Attorney and Solicitor Gene- 
 ral; and the Law being thus ascertained, the 
 Colonels are ordered to read it at the head of 
 their respective Regiments for the purpose of satis- 
 fying the minds of the Men. The two first lines 
 of the Attorney and Solicitor General's answer to 
 the Secretary of State are not a little remarkable. 
 ' We have had the honour' (said the Attorney and 
 Solicitor General) ( to receive your Lordship's letter 
 of yesterday's date.' Now I think that a subject 
 of this importance required a little more con- 
 sideration. The Law Officers might have taken 
 rather more than twenty-four hours to ascertain 
 the old Law and extent of the Royal Prerogative 
 on this subject, without any imputation of igno- 
 rance or unnecessary delay. They were asked, 
 whether under any circumstances it was impe- 
 rative on the Crown to disembody the Militia. 
 To this they reply, in effect, that there is nothing 
 imperative in the Act ; that when once the Militia 
 is embodied, it may be continued so, at the dis- 
 cretion of Ministers, who are thus constituted sole 
 judges of the course which it may be ( expedient* 
 to pursue. We have often heard of Necessity 
 being urged in defence of illegal measures. In the 
 room of that despotic plea, we are now to have the 
 doctrine of Expediency. Thus, as long as it may 
 appear expedient to Ministers, men, who have
 
 THB MILITIA. 59 
 
 not volunteered their services, are to be kept from 
 their homes and families, subject to all the seve- 
 rities of Martial Law, and deprived of all the 
 comforts and of all the privileges of civil life ; 
 and for this violation of their Liberty, they are 
 told, to be satisfied with the responsibility of Mi- 
 nisters ! Is this a sufficient answer, this a suffi- 
 cient remedy for the People ? In what time, in what 
 country, under what arbitrary government, have 
 not Ministers been responsible? Our ancestors, 
 whose wisdom has been the theme of such fre- 
 quent panegyrics in this House, imposed re- 
 straints upon the Royal Prerogative, but these are 
 now obsolete. Expediency supersedes Law, and 
 the security of our liberties is henceforward to 
 depend on the vaunted responsibility of Ministerr 
 " In another part of the answer, which I oii & 
 also to have stated, the Attorney and Solicitor 
 General further say, that f whereas by section ) 
 of the Act of the 42d of the King, it is declarea 
 lawful to disembody any part or portion of the 
 Militia, after being embodied, and from time to 
 time to draw out again such part or portion so 
 disembodied, they are of opinion, that if the ex- 
 ternal relations and internal situation of the Coun- 
 try should be such as to call for, and justify, a re- 
 duction of any part or portion of the Militia, it is 
 in the power of His Majesty's Ministers, in the 
 exercise of the discretion vested in them, to sus- 
 pend any order issued for such reduction or dis-
 
 60 THE MILITIA. 
 
 embodying 1 , but not carried into execution ; and 
 further, as long as any regiment continues to be em- 
 bodied, to call out again all the rest of the Militia 
 actually disembodied.' According to this opinion, 
 His Majesty's Ministers may, at any time when 
 they deem it expedient, call out again the whole 
 of the Militia now disembodied. Let the House 
 reflect on the extent and consequences of this 
 doctrine, on the abuse of it which may follow in 
 times to come. One stretch of authority leads to 
 another. By lending our sanction to the conduct 
 of Ministers on the present occasion, we are not 
 merely protecting them, but are establishing a 
 precedent for every future adviser of the Crown. 
 By tolerating this doctrine of the Attorney and 
 Solicitor General, we virtually supersede those 
 enactments which have been deemed necessary by 
 the Legislature, for the security of the subject, 
 and enable Ministers at once, without impediment 
 or delay, to call out, or keep embodied, the whole 
 Militia Force of the kingdom. 
 
 " But it is said, that if the Legislature had 
 desired to impose limits on the Royal Prerogative 
 as to the time of disembodying the Militia, it 
 would have specified its intention by express 
 words. It has done so in the Local Militia Act; 
 why should it have omitted that precaution in 
 passing the Act under the consideration of the 
 House? Now I really am at a loss to compre- 
 hend the force of this reasoning, or to see the
 
 THE MILITIA. 61 
 
 necessity of the inference, which we are desired 
 to draw from these premises. It will be for the 
 ingenuity of my learned Friends opposite to show, 
 how an ordinance which passed the Legislature 
 without discussion, is to throw any light upon the 
 intentions of Parliament at the time of its passing 
 the Militia Act. The single question, after all, is 
 this, whether, the causes for calling out the Militia 
 having ceased, the power of keeping them em- 
 bodied ought not to cease also? Such care and 
 anxiety having been manifested to prevent an im- 
 proper exercise of the Prerogative in the one in- 
 stance, is it probable that the Legislature should 
 have left it altogether uncontrolled in the other ? 
 The doctrine which has been avowed by the Law 
 Officers of the Crown, cannot but be attended 
 with the most fatal effects to the Militia Establish- 
 ment. Indeed, the tendency of almost every 
 measure adopted of late years in respect to that 
 body, has been to leave every thing burdensome, 
 and to take away whatever might be beneficial in 
 the service. Men of landed property are every 
 day less and less inclined to enter it. Their re- 
 luctance will be still farther increased; for what 
 can so effectually deter Gentlemen from accepting 
 Commissions when the Country is in danger, as 
 the idea, that their services are to be continued as 
 long as Ministers shall think fit to command them, 
 under the pretext, perhaps, of a War in India, or 
 of gome intended adjustment as to the balance of
 
 62 THE MILITIA. 
 
 European power? But the greatest hardship is, 
 that to which the Privates will be suhject, more 
 especially those who, from their inability to pro- 
 cure substitutes, have been compelled to serve in 
 person. Forced from the civil walks of life, and 
 obliged to remain in arms without necessity, at 
 the will of Ministers, I can see little difference 
 between their case and that of the French armies, 
 whose situation, under their late Chief, has so 
 frequently excited the commiseration of this 
 House. According to the interpretation now at- 
 tempted to be put upon the Militia Laws, there 
 is not. an individual but will be liable to be called 
 out, and to serve, not only in cases of national 
 emergency and danger, but on whatever occa- 
 sions, and for whatever period, may be deemed 
 expedient by Ministers. 
 
 " I shall detain the House no longer. Ad- 
 miring, in common with every friend of Freedom, 
 the institution of the Militia, I cannot silently 
 acquiesce in any measure tending to pervert its 
 spirit. I have, therefore, once more submitted 
 this subject to the consideration of Parliament; 
 and whatever may be its fate, this night, how- 
 ever different from what my sanguine wishes 
 would gladly anticipate, I shall at least have the 
 consolation of having endeavoured to perform my 
 duty." Sir Samuel Romilly concluded, by mov- 
 ing, " That nine months having now elapsed since 
 the Definitive Treaty of Peace with France was
 
 INSOLVENT ACT. 63 
 
 signed, and this Country having during the whole 
 of that period been at peace not only with France, 
 but with every power in Europe; and no cause 
 whatever having existed, or now existing, for ap- 
 prehending invasion by a foreign enemy,, or any 
 insurrection or rebellion within the realm, it is 
 contrary to the spirit and true intent and meaning 
 of the Act of 42 George III. c. 90, to continue 
 any part of the Militia Force of this Country still 
 embodied." 
 
 After some discussion, the House divided 
 For the Motion - - - 76 
 Against it - - - - - 179 
 
 I -T 
 
 . 
 
 Majority ----- 103 
 
 
 
 INSOLVENT ACT. 
 
 MayQtft, 1815. 
 
 MR. Serjeant Best rose to move the second read- 
 ing of the Insolvent Debtors' Act. General 
 Thornton expressed a wish that the second read- 
 ing might be postponed, as many Gentlemen who 
 intended to deliver their sentiments on the Bill, 
 had left the House. Mr. Serjeant Best having 
 
 acceded to General Thornton's request. Sir Sa- 
 
 ^
 
 64 INSOLVENT ACT. 
 
 muel Romilly rose, and spoke to the following 
 effect : 
 
 " Although it is far from being my wish to 
 press the second reading of this Bill, or to inter- 
 fere with any arrangement which may be deemed 
 necessary for the attendance of those Members, 
 who are desirous of taking a part in the discussion 
 of it; yet I cannot lose this opportunity (the only 
 one I probably shall have) of troubling the House 
 with the few observations, which I think it my 
 duty to offer on the subject. 
 
 " There is perhaps no part of the English Law, 
 which requires more consideration than the Law 
 relating to Debtor and Creditor. It is a subject 
 highly worthy of the wisdom and humanity of this 
 House, and I trust, that it will at length receive 
 the attention which its importance deserves. To 
 me the Law appears to have proceeded altogether 
 on an erroneous principle. It is too harsh towards 
 the person, and too relaxed towards the property 
 of the Debtor. It imprisons the Debtor for not 
 applying his property to the fulfilment of his en- 
 gagements, while it leaves the property itself, 
 which might have been adequate for the purpose, 
 free and untouched. The consequence is, that 
 there exists no distinction between insolvency and 
 fraud. The same walls frequently contain half- 
 famished creatures, who would perish for want 
 but for the gaol allowance, and persons revelling 
 in luxury, who prefer a residence in prison to the
 
 INSOLVENT ACT. 65 
 
 honest payment of their debts. An angry Creditor 
 might, until very lately, have doomed his Debtor 
 to imprisonment for life, a punishment too severe 
 for almost any crime. As far as the last Insolvent 
 Act remedied this evil, it had my cordial appro- 
 bation. That Act was indeed defective in many 
 of its clauses; it left much to be done; but 
 it was in every point of view an improvement on 
 the periodical Acts which had preceded it. Pro- 
 ceeding on a principle familiar to the legislation 
 of other countries, that of the Cessio Bonorum, 
 it enabled the Debtor, by an honest surrender 
 of his eifects, to recover his liberty. It inter- 
 posed, ere it was too late, to rescue the unfor- 
 tunate from the moral contagion of a Prison, and 
 gave to the most imprudent and even criminal, 
 an opportunity of retracing their steps, and of 
 becoming, by the exercise of their industry and 
 talents, useful members of society. 
 
 " Holding this opinion with respect to the last 
 Insolvent Act, believing that the evils attending 
 it, have been exaggerated, and that the good, 
 which it has effected, is not sufficiently known, I 
 can by no means concur in the Preamble of the 
 Bill now before the House, at least in that part 
 of the Preamble which describes the former Act 
 as injurious to the interests and the morals of the 
 People. Where is the proof of any such evils 
 having resulted from it? It is said to have af- 
 fected credit, but it can only be a credit of the 
 
 VOL. II. F
 
 66 INSOLVENT ACT. 
 
 worst species. It does not interfere with com- 
 mercial credit, but only with that mischievous 
 credit which Tradesmen are in the hahit of giving 
 to persons in low situations, which frequently 
 leads them to live beyond their circumstances, 
 and which, in the end, is equally prejudicial to 
 both parties. 
 
 " With regard to the Bill proposed by my 
 learned Friend, it appears to me in many re- 
 spects objectionable. It is intended to embrace 
 two objects ; the one, to compel the application 
 of a Debtor's property to the payment of his 
 debts; the other, to inflict certain degrees of 
 punishment upon Debtors having no property, 
 or only a small portion. Nothing can be more 
 consistent with justice than the first of these ob- 
 jects, but I do not think the mode proposed by 
 my learned Friend the best adapted to the pur- 
 pose. To compel a man to make a declaration 
 upon oath, and then, if that declaration is not in 
 every respect correct, to punish him as a felon, is 
 contrary to the soundest principles of Legislation. 
 I am aware that under the Bankrupt Laws such 
 a practice prevails, but it does not, therefore, fol- 
 low, that it will l)e wise to adopt a similar prac- 
 tice with regard to other Debtors. The very 
 severity of such an enactment will render it inef- 
 fectual. Such has been the case with the Laws to 
 which I have just alluded. Such has been the 
 case with the Lords' Act from which the proposed
 
 INSOLVENT ACT. 67 
 
 Clause is, I believe, exactly copied, and which is 
 already obsolete. Is it not, therefore, advisable 
 to dispense with an enactment, which, in all pro- 
 bability, will soon become a mere dead letter, and 
 to substitute in its stead something better cal- 
 culated to attain the desired end? A Clause might 
 be introduced compelling the Debtor, by legal pro- 
 cess, to surrender his property to the use of his 
 Creditors, and enabling the latter to take the 
 funds of the former in execution. A remedy might 
 also be provided against Sham Pleas, Writs of 
 Error, and the various other artifices by which the 
 profligate and unprincipled are in the habit of 
 protracting the proceedings, and increasing the 
 expenses of their Creditors*. Indeed, I had hoped, 
 that some of these evils would have found a re- 
 medy in the present Bill, as no person is better 
 able to introduce provisions for that purpose than 
 my learned Friend. As for Writs of Error, they 
 ought, as far as it is practicable, to be prohibited 
 
 * On a subsequent occasion, Sir S. Rorailly noticed a Letter 
 on this subject, which had accidentally fallen into his hands. It 
 was from a London Attorney to the Debtors in Gloucester prison, 
 instructing them in various practices of chicanery, in the use of 
 Sham Pleas, and in suing out Writs of Error before the signing of 
 final judgment. It recommended them (in case they were de- 
 sirous of being particularly troublesome) to make the Writs' of 
 Error returnable in Parliament. By these and similar proceedings 
 of a dilatory nature, Debtors, at a trifling cost to themselves, 
 might put their Creditors to an expense of several hundred 
 pounds ! See Parliamentary Delates of April 2,8th, 1817-
 
 68 INSOLVENT ACT. 
 
 in all cases where there is no substantial error, and 
 where they are merely resorted to as instruments 
 of expense and delay. For this purpose, no Writ 
 of Error should be allowed, unless the error is 
 certified by two Counsel. That alone, in my judg- 
 ment, would operate as a material improvement on 
 the Law. 
 
 " Sir, I will now advert to the second object of 
 this Bill, the infliction of punishment on Debtors 
 having little or no property. The learned Serjeant 
 has proposed a graduated scale, by which a Debtor 
 having given up all his property, is still to be impri- 
 soned for a longer or a shorter time in proportion 
 to the amount of the Dividend which he may have 
 been enabled to pay. Thus, if a man's property is 
 only equal to the payment of five shillings in the 
 pound, he is to be imprisoned perhaps twice as long 
 as the individual who is able to pay ten shillings in 
 the pound, and so on, in a certain gradation. Is this 
 just? If a Debtor be guilty of fraud, let him suf- 
 fer for the offence, but do not make the number of 
 shillings which he may be able to pay in the pound 
 the criterion of his guilt or innocence. Do not 
 condemn as a crime, that which frequently deserves 
 to be commiserated as a misfortune. Do not 
 confound all moral distinctions by thus identifying 
 insolvency with fraud, and dooming the unfor- 
 tunate and the criminal to the same punishment." 
 
 Sir Samuel Romilly concluded with observing, 
 that he had been as anxious, in his consideration 
 2
 
 THE ADDRESS. 69 
 
 of the subject before the House, to attend to the 
 interests of the Creditor as to those of the Debtor. 
 They were interests which ought not to be sepa- 
 rated; what was for the good of the one, would be 
 found, he believed, equally advantageous to the 
 other. Much, however, remained to be done, and 
 he trusted that the subject would receive the 
 fullest consideration of Parliament. 
 
 THE ADDRESS. 
 
 February 1st, 1816. 
 
 IN consequence of the indisposition of the Prince 
 Regent, the Session was opened by Commission, 
 when the Lord Chancellor, as one of the Com- 
 missioners, delivered the usual Speech to both 
 Houses of Parliament. The principal topics to 
 which it adverted, were the continuance of His 
 Majesty's illness, the restoration of Peace, and 
 " the re-establishment of the authority of His Most 
 Christian Majesty in the capital of his dominions." 
 An Address, the echo of the Speech, was then 
 voted by both Houses. That of the Commons 
 was moved by Sir Thomas Dyke Acland, and se- 
 
 F 3
 
 70 THE ADDRESS. 
 
 conded by Mr. Methuen. It was opposed by Mr. 
 Brand, Lord John Russell, Mr. Brougham, &c. ; 
 and supported by Lord Milton, the Chancellor of 
 the Exchequer, Lord Castlereagh, and Mr. Wil- 
 liam Elliot. Sir Samuel Romilly said, " How- 
 ever unwilling to enter, at this early period of the 
 Session, on any subject connected with the foreign 
 policy of this country, I cannot, by my silence, 
 allow the House to suppose that I approve of all 
 that has fallen from the honourable Gentlemen 
 opposite in support of the Address. Upon some 
 of the topics, indeed, to which they have ad- 
 verted, there is little room for difference of opi- 
 nion. No one can refuse to concur with the 
 honourable Baronet, either in his regret at the 
 continued indisposition of His Majesty, or in the 
 exultation with which he dwells on the restoration 
 of a general Peace. There is no one but will be 
 anxious to acquiesce in the eulogies which he has 
 passed on the valour and discipline of our soldiers, 
 and on the glory of those achievements which 
 have so highly exalted the military character of 
 this country. But however I may concur in these 
 points, however I may rejoice in beholding, at 
 length, an end to the hostilities which have deso- 
 lated Europe, I must still dissent from the unqua- 
 lified approbation which has been lavished on the 
 cause for which they were undertaken, and on the 
 manner in which they have been terminated. I 
 must still protest against the principles upon which 
 Ministers have acted, principles not less at va-
 
 THE ADDRESS. 71 
 
 riance with the soundest and most obvious maxims 
 of reason and justice, than with their own repeated 
 declarations. The House cannot surely have for- 
 gotten those declarations. It cannot have forgot- 
 ten the solemn and explicit manner in which His 
 Majesty's Ministers, on all occasions, not only 
 when the war commenced, but while it was in its 
 progress, down even to the moment when Parlia- 
 ment last separated, disavowed those very prin- 
 ciples which now appear to have regulated their 
 whole subsequent conduct. They protested against 
 all interference with the internal affairs of France. 
 They declared that the war was carried on against 
 Buonaparte individually. They indignantly dis- 
 claimed the intention, which was imputed to them 
 by their political opponents, of influencing the 
 French people in the choice of a Sovereign. No- 
 thing, (as it was even intimated to Buonaparte 
 himself,) nothing was further from the intentions 
 of the British Government than to take a part in 
 restoring Louis the Eighteenth to the throne of 
 France! 
 
 " Such was the language of Ministers in Par- 
 liament during the last session: such also were 
 the professions of the Allies. In a letter to the 
 noble Lord opposite (Castlereagh), dated Vienna, 
 May 6th, 1815, Lord Clancarty, speaking of the 
 allied Sovereigns, says, * In this war they do not 
 desire to interfere with any legitimate right of the 
 French people; they have no design to oppose the 
 
 F 4
 
 72 THE ADDRESS. 
 
 claim of that nation to choose its own form of go- 
 vernment, or intention to trench in any respect 
 upon their independence as a great and free people. 
 But they do think that they have a right, and 
 that of the highest nature, to contend against the 
 re-establishment of an individual, as the head of 
 the French government, whose past conduct has 
 invariably demonstrated, that, in such a situation, 
 he will not suffer other nations to be at peace.' 
 And again, in the same letter, ' However general 
 the feelings of the Sovereigns may be in favour of 
 the restoration of the King, they no otherwise seek 
 to influence the proceedings of the French in the 
 choice of this or any other dynasty or form of go- 
 vernment, than may be essential to the safety and 
 permanent tranquillity of Europe. Such, my 
 Lord, are the general sentiments of the Sovereigns, 
 and of their Ministers here assembled, &c.' * 
 
 " These principles were professed even after 
 the battle of Waterloo. They were proclaimed in 
 the triumphant march of the allied armies. They 
 were avowed by the Duke of Wellington until he 
 arrived at St. Cloud. Up to the convention of 
 Paris, the same language was continually held 
 
 * See also the memorandum of the 25th of April 1815, to 
 the treaty between His Britannic Majesty, and the Emperors of 
 Austria, Russia, and the King of Prussia ; as well as the speeches 
 of the Earl of Liverpool and Viscount Castlereagh in the Houses* 
 of Lords and Commons.
 
 THE ADDRESS. 73 
 
 even to the deputies from the provisional govern- 
 ment. On the occupation of Paris, however, the 
 veil was withdrawn, and the policy and intentions 
 of the allies were at length revealed to their asto- 
 nished enemies. The war commenced, as it had 
 been so solemnly protested, for the sole purpose 
 of excluding Buonaparte from power, was then 
 found to have for its object the restoration of the 
 House of Bourbon. In contempt of the declared 
 wishes and feelings of the nation, Louis has been 
 replaced upon the throne of France, while a fo- 
 reign army is henceforward to be kept up in that 
 country to enforce obedience, and to resist every 
 movement of the people, in vindication of their 
 rights. And what has been the pretext for this 
 altered policy on the part of the British Govern- 
 ment and its allies ? What sudden change of 
 circumstances has occurred to authorize them in 
 acting on a system which, until the moment of 
 its adoption, they so strenuously deprecated ? 
 Was it their triumphs, their unexpected successes,, 
 that gave birth to this new policy ? Was it the 
 power, so fortuitously thrown into their hands, 
 that induced them to enforce principles so diame- 
 trically opposite to their former professions ? If 
 so, where is their faith to the French people? 
 They have broken their engagements, they have 
 renounced their professions. Instead, therefore, 
 of concurring in the praises which have been la- 
 vished on the conduct of Ministers, I feel it my 
 duty thus publicly to protest against measures so
 
 74 FREEHOLD ESTATES BILL. 
 
 inconsistent with every received principle of equity 
 and good faith, with every principle which once 
 distinguished the policy and character of this 
 country. 
 
 " Averse as I have uniformly been from war, 
 I cannot but rejoice at the re-establishment of 
 peace. Peace is always desirable, and I would, 
 therefore, wish it to be lasting. But to be secure, 
 it must be honourable ; it must be founded on the 
 basis of reciprocal confidence and good-will ; it 
 must leave behind it no stings of hatred and re- 
 venge. Not so the present peace. It is the bitter 
 fruit of unjust compulsion and arbitrary power, 
 and contains within itself the seeds of its own 
 destruction." 
 
 FREEHOLD ESTATES BILL. 
 
 February 7th, 1816. 
 
 SIR Samuel Romilly. " Sir, I rise, in pursuance 
 of the notice which I have given, to move once 
 more for leave to bring in a Bill* to render Freehold 
 Estates liable to Simple Contract Debts. As it is 
 a measure which has already passed this House 
 twice, and on the last occasion even without op- 
 position, I should not have thought it necessary 
 to repeat a single observation upon the subject.
 
 FREEHOLD ESTATES BILL. 75 
 
 had it not been for the objections which have been 
 urged against it in another place; objections, 
 which may seem to require an answer, if not for 
 their own intrinsic weight, at least on account of 
 the very high authority from which they have pro- 
 ceeded. 
 
 " By this Bill, as I have already stated, it is 
 proposed that Freehold Property shall be sub- 
 jected to Simple Contract Debts ; that those, who 
 are the objects of a testator's bounty, shall be 
 compelled to fulfil his pecuniary engagements ; 
 that they shall not be allowed to live in splen- 
 dour on his property, while his honest creditors 
 remain unpaid, struggling perhaps with all the 
 vicissitudes of trade, or reduced to bankruptcy 
 and ruin. Against this proposition I can ima- 
 gine no valid objection. It is a remedy for 
 gross injustice ; for, with what other epithet 
 than unjust ought that principle to be qualified 
 which this Bill proposes to remove ? Is it not ma- 
 nifestly unjust, that whilst one description of 
 debtors shall be obliged to deliver up the whole of 
 their property to their creditors, and, should that 
 prove insufficient to satisfy every demand, be still 
 liable in their persons to all the evils of imprison- 
 ment, another description shall be allowed to 
 transmit their property untouched by law, and 
 above the reach of the most equitable claims? 
 
 " Sir, I know it has been said, that the rules 
 of natural justice are not applicable to this ques- 
 tion ; for it is not natural justice, but the law of
 
 76 FREEHOLD ESTATES BILL. 
 
 the land, which allows a man to inherit or dispose 
 of his real estates. Now, admitting this position, 
 that the right of inheriting and alienating land is 
 not a natural right, but the mere creature of civil 
 society, is the proprietor, on that account, to be 
 absolved from all obedience to the first principles 
 of natural reason and justice ? Is it less incum- 
 bent on the Legislature to qualify its bounty with 
 such conditions as shall be deemed essential to the 
 existence of those principles ? Or will it be con- 
 tended that it is inconsistent with them, or rather 
 that it is not of their very essence,- that every man 
 should be liable, according to his ability and 
 means, to the payment of his debts ? At present, 
 it is in the power of the possessor of a Freehold 
 Estate to bestow it upon whomsoever he chooses ; 
 on persons who are aliens alike in blood and af- 
 fection. The heir may be disinherited, may be 
 exposed to beggary by the most capricious trans- 
 fers of that property, which, whether allowed to 
 descend to him, or lavished upon strangers, is, in 
 either case, equally exempted from contributing 
 the smallest portion of its profits for the purposes 
 of common justice, for discharging debts which 
 have been contracted by its former possessor ! 
 
 " But the present measure, we are told, is to 
 make the Law do for the creditor that which he 
 might, if he pleased, have done for himself. By 
 what means? By refusing all credit to his cus- 
 tomers or employers ? By rejecting, in the ordinary 
 course of business, the usual negotiable securities
 
 FREEHOLD ESTATES BILL. 77 
 
 drawn at a short date, and by insisting, every mo- 
 ment, on having recourse to bonds, mortgages, 
 and all the sealed securities recognized by Law ? 
 
 " Sir, it is a strong argument for the re- 
 peal of this Law, that its evils fall most frequently 
 upon those who are least able to sustain them, 
 upon poor servants, inferior tradesmen, and or- 
 phan children. To the latter it has sometimes 
 been productive of the most fatal consequences. 
 Personal property bequeathed in trust, or the pro- 
 ceeds of real estates devised to be sold for their 
 benefit, may be vested by the trustee in the pur- 
 chase of lands, which, when devolving to his heirs 
 or devisees, will not be liable to the claims of his 
 injured wards, who are merely Simple Contract 
 Creditors, and as such (unless there should be 
 assets) must be altogether destitute of remedy or 
 resource! Cases of this description have fre- 
 quently occurred in our Courts of Equity. 
 
 " This state of the law is peculiar to this Coun- 
 try and Ireland. It is not the law of our Colonies ; 
 it is not the law of Scotland, though so jealous of 
 alienation ; it is not the law of the Continent, 
 where the remains of feudal strictness more gene- 
 rally prevail. Why then is it permitted to con- 
 tinue the reproach of England ? If, indeed, the 
 removal of this evil would, by any probability, 
 leave room for greater evils, I should admit that it 
 was the duty of the Legislature to pause, and to 
 acquiesce in any present inconvenience, rather 
 than to hazard a remedy at the expense of dan-
 
 78 FREEHOLD ESTATES BILL. 
 
 gerous and uncertain consequences. But what 
 are the consequences to be apprehended from this 
 proposed alteration, in the imagination of its op- 
 ponents? Why, truly, that it will be attended 
 with difficulty in its execution ; that it will involve 
 the titles to Freehold Estates in perplexity and 
 doubt ; and will lead to endless litigation and ex- 
 pense. If the Bill should be adopted, they say, 
 no one on whom Freehold Property has devolved 
 will be able to dispose of it without a decree in a 
 Court of Equity, or without being fully satisfied, 
 that the Simple Contract Debts of the testator are 
 discharged ; and it is asked, whether it would be 
 reasonable to subject the disposal of Freehold Pro- 
 perty to such an obstacle and incumbrance ? But 
 the fact is, that no such consequences are to be ap- 
 prehended. Was it not, indeed, for the high autho- 
 rity from which the assertion has proceeded,! should 
 scarcely notice it with respect. The liability of Free- 
 hold Estates to Bond Debts has been productive of 
 no such evils. Why should we anticipate such fright- 
 ful effects from making them subject to every other 
 just demand ? But the objection, if in any degree 
 valid, would have been equally applicable to the 
 Act which passed the Legislature in 1807, for 
 subjecting the Freehold Estates of persons en- 
 gaged in trade to the payment of Simple Contract 
 Debts. And yet no inconvenience or difficulty, 
 such as is now apprehended, has been found to 
 result from that Act. No extraordinary litigation 
 or expense has been incurred to facilitate the dis-
 
 FREEHOLD ESTATES BILL. 79 
 
 posal of the Freehold Property of traders. On the 
 contrary, the experience which we have had of 
 that measure is such as to warrant me in proposing 
 this. While, on the one hand, it has proved the 
 groundlessness of the apprehensions now ex- 
 pressed ; on the other, it has led to the greatest 
 public advantages, by enabling, in many cases, 
 honest creditors to recover debts for which they 
 would otherwise have had no adequate remedy. 
 
 " Another objection, which has been raised 
 against the present measure, is, that it does not 
 go far enough ; that it should have included Copy- 
 hold Estates! And from whom does this objec- 
 tion come ? Not from the friends of the Bill, but 
 from its adversaries, from those who condemn its 
 principle, who deprecate the lengths to which it 
 already goes, and who would impede its progress, 
 by involving it in additional difficulties. It is no- 
 torious, that, according to the Law, Copyhold 
 Estates are not liable to the payment of any debts, 
 even during the life of the debtor ; and yet by 
 these objectors it is desired to subject them to 
 Simple Contract Debts after his death. But what 
 is the obvious wish of these objectors ? What, 
 but to have the measure decried as a deep and 
 daring innovation, as a lawless invasion of ma- 
 norial rights ? What, but to render the oppo- 
 sition against it more formidable, by calling into 
 action the clamours of prejudice, and by exciting 
 weak alarms for the menaced institutions of our 
 forefathers? However desirous I might feel to
 
 80 FREEHOLD ESTATES BILL. 
 
 include Copyhold Estates in the present Bill, I 
 am conscious that I could not make the attempt 
 without hazarding the safety of the whole mea- 
 sure. 
 
 " The next objection to this Bill (and it is only 
 necessary to state it, in order to demonstrate its 
 futility) is, that, by allowing debts to be esta- 
 blished by mere parol evidence, it will offer an 
 encouragement to perjury. But parol evidence is 
 sufficient to establish claims upon a debtor in his 
 lifetime, and why not after his death ? It is 
 sufficient to establish claims upon personal pro- 
 perty, and why not then upon real property? If, 
 indeed, such evidence were to be deemed insuffi- 
 cient, a most material change would be made in 
 our Law, affecting alike every description of pro- 
 perty and contract. 
 
 " A further objection to this Bill is, the faci- 
 lity of obtaining credit, which it is supposed to 
 afford to young men of fortune. But is this really 
 the case ? Does any one, seriously reflecting on 
 the subject, imagine that a tradesman, in furnish- 
 ing goods, looks forward to the demise of his 
 debtors r That he will be less influenced by the 
 power of immediate arrest and consequent judg- 
 ment, than by the ultimate hope of coming, at 
 some future period, upon their Estates ? That he 
 will prefer a remote and contingent, to an instant 
 and certain remedy, and will give credit to pro- 
 bably younger men than himself, in expectation of 
 being paid after their decease ? Cases of this
 
 FREEHOLD ESTATES BILL. 81 
 
 kind, however possible, are not likely to be of very 
 frequent occurrence. Besides, it is notorious, that 
 those who are in the habit of giving credit or 
 lending money to support the extravagance of 
 young men, generally take care to secure them- 
 selves by Bonds and Agreements, which already 
 affect Freehold Property; and the only object of 
 this Bill is, to put Simple Contract Creditors, 
 whose claims are probably more just, in the 
 same situation. But the use which has been 
 made of this argument about credit is somewhat 
 curious. When an objection is wanted for any 
 measure tending to relieve the debtor, the only 
 danger to be apprehended is the diminution of 
 public credit. Now, when it is proposed to do 
 justice to the creditor, by enabling him to come 
 upon the property of his debtor, our fears are to 
 be turned into an opposite direction, and we are 
 to believe that credit has been already carried to 
 too great an extent in this country. If so (and 
 should the complaint in either of these cases be 
 well founded, it must be in the latter), I should 
 say, let imprisonment for debt be abolished. That 
 would operate as an effectual check upon credit. 
 It would moreover be the means of rescuing a 
 large portion of our countrymen from the moral 
 as well as physical contagion of a gaol ; a far more 
 politic and beneficent measure, than locking up 
 the Estates of the unprincipled or thoughtless 
 from the claims of their honest creditors. 
 VOL. n. c
 
 82 FREEHOLD ESTATES BILL. 
 
 " But it is further urged in opposition to this 
 measure, that it is unconstitutional that it inter- 
 feres with the rights of Juries! Now, with all 
 the respect which I entertain for that institution 
 (and no man, I believe, reveres it more than I 
 do), I am compelled to say, that the recovery of 
 a debt is frequently more cheap and expeditious 
 by a Bill in Equity than by an Action at Law, 
 which is, in so many cases, liable to be defeated 
 by an injunction from the Court of Chancery. 
 Is it not, therefore, under such circumstances, 
 better for the Creditor at once to resort to a 
 Court of Equity than to have his difficulties and 
 expenses increased by proceeding in the first in- 
 stance by action ? Far be from me the desire of 
 unnecessarily driving parties into the expense and 
 delay of a suit in Chancery; far be from me the 
 wish even to substitute a Bill in Equity for an 
 Action at Law. My only object is to shorten the 
 proceedings and to limit the expense, by affording 
 the parties relief in one Court instead of driving 
 them into two. At present, they are exposed to 
 litigation both in Law and Equity. By the pro- 
 posed measure, they will be saved from the ne- 
 cessity of resorting to the former by finding- a 
 ready and efficient remedy in the latter. It will 
 be competent, however, for any Member who 
 conceives that the desired end may be attained 
 by other means, to propose an amendment,, giving
 
 FREEHOLD ESTATES BILL. 83 
 
 to the Creditor the alternative of proceeding either 
 by Action at Law or by Bill in Equity. 
 
 " As for any thing which has been urged 
 against this measure on the ground of its tendency 
 to weaken the Aristocracy, I am really ashamed 
 to advert even for a moment to such an objec- 
 tion. The most malignant enemy of that body 
 could have devised no charge so calculated to 
 bring it into unpopularity and contempt as this 
 insinuation, that the consequence of its members 
 depends on an exemption from the necessity of 
 discharging their debts, on the privilege of being 
 allowed to commit injustice, and to injure the 
 other orders of society with impunity! Let us 
 rescue the Aristocracy from so unmerited an im- 
 putation ; let us show, that it owes its weight in 
 the public estimation, not to unjust distinctions 
 of Law, but to those virtues which, I trust, will 
 never cease to be the characteristics of English 
 Gentlemen. 
 
 " There is yet one more objection to which I 
 must allude. It has been suggested that this is 
 not a single measure, that it is a part only of a 
 system for altering the whole code of English 
 Law. But is this an argument which ought to 
 prevail? Is a good measure to be rejected because 
 it may possibly be followed by a bad one? The 
 progress of the latter can be in no degree facili- 
 tated by the success of the former. The objec- 
 tion, however, (admitting its validity), is not 
 
 G 2
 
 84 FREEHOLD ESTATES KILL. 
 
 founded upon fact. I have no such intention as 
 that imputed to me. There are many reforms, 
 indeed, required in the Laws of Debtor and Cre- 
 ditor ; and happy should I be if I could propose 
 them with any prospect of success. Notwith- 
 standing the repeated boasts which we hear re- 
 specting our system of Law, there are undoubt- 
 edly parts of it which must be acknowledged by 
 all to be in some degree defective, and but ill 
 suited to the state of society in which we live. 
 The Law of landed Property more particularly 
 was framed with a view to a feudal, rather than 
 a commercial state of society; and with all be- 
 coming deference and respect for the wisdom of 
 our ancestors, it is really paying too much vene- 
 ration to their institutions to continue them un- 
 altered when the motives which gave them birth 
 have altogether ceased, and when the state of 
 society in which they originated, and for which 
 they were perhaps adapted, has undergone an 
 entire change. From a feudal, we have become 
 a great commercial country; and it is therefore 
 necessary to accommodate our Laws to the altered 
 circumstances of the age. 
 
 '* But to say nothing of the principle of the 
 Law, to say nothing of the circumstance that 
 only one half of a debtor's Lands can be taken 
 in execution by the creditor, or that Land devised 
 or descending to the heir is not subject to the 
 Simple Contract Debts of the ancestor or devisor, 
 even though the money borrowed has been vested
 
 FREEHOLD ESTATES BILL. 85 
 
 in the purchase of that very Land, it is notorious 
 that a debtor can always protract the payment of 
 his debts by delays profitable only to the legal 
 profession, by Writs of Error, Sham Pleas, and 
 other tricks too numerous to be mentioned. It is, 
 indeed, most desirable that these should be all 
 abolished, and happy should I feel at being the 
 instrument in so blessed a work. I have now, 
 however, only to propose the single measure which 
 I have been describing ; a measure rendered more 
 necessary, if possible, at the present than at any 
 former period, by the aggravated distresses of the 
 country, and by the important alteration, which 
 has been adopted in our civil policy, by the in- 
 troduction of the Insolvent Debtors' Act. That 
 Act, with all its defects, I still continue to think 
 beneficial, and in every respect superior to the 
 periodical Acts which preceded it. Much, how- 
 ever, remains to be done in order to render equal 
 justice to the creditor, by giving to him the fair 
 benefit of his debtor's property. To contribute, 
 however inadequately, to this desirable end, and 
 to remove an evil which I cannot but consider as 
 a reproach to the justice of this country, is the 
 object of the measure which I once more venture 
 to submit to the consideration of the Legislature. 
 I have now only to apologize to the House for 
 having trespassed on its patience; and to express 
 a hope, that if I have been guilty of prolixity, it 
 will be ascribed to its true cause, to an earnest 
 
 G 3
 
 86 ADDRESS UPON THE 
 
 anxiety to obviate every unfounded objection, and 
 to make myself as intelligible as possible, upon a 
 subject of so much importance to the landed and 
 commercial interests of this country." 
 
 Leave was given to Sir Samuel Romilly to 
 bring in the Bill *. 
 
 ADDRESS UPON THE TREATIES WITH 
 FOREIGN POWERS. 
 
 February 19th and ZQtli, 1816. 
 
 LORD Castlereagh, after a long and elaborate 
 speech, in which he took a view of the principal 
 events which had occurred in Europe during the 
 preceding year, and of the situation in which this 
 Country was left with respect to Foreign Powers, 
 concluded by moving an Address to the Prince 
 Regent, expressive of the satisfaction of the House 
 at the Treaties which had been entered into by 
 His Royal Highness, for the peace and security of 
 Europe. 
 
 To this an Amendment was proposed by Lord 
 Milton, complaining of the impolicy of those 
 
 Treaties, and of their tendency to inflame and 
 
 , . 
 
 * This equitable measure passed the House of Commons 
 without opposition, but was rejected (for the third time) by the 
 House of Lords.
 
 TREATIES WITH FOREIGN POWERS. 87 
 
 prolong the animosity of France by the stipula- 
 tions which they contained for keeping up a large 
 allied force on the frontiers of that country. After 
 a protracted debate, in which Mr. Fazakerly, Sir 
 James Mackintosh, Lord Nugent, Mr. Law, and 
 Mr. Douglas bore a part, Sir Samuel Romilly 
 rose, and said ; 
 
 " Sir, Thinking and feeling as I do upon this 
 subject, concurring neither in the proposed Ad- 
 dress, nor in the unqualified praise which has been 
 lavished upon Ministers, I cannot consent to give 
 a silent vote, more especially after the allusions 
 which have been made by the noble Lord (Castle- 
 reagh) to what fell from me on the first night of 
 the Session *. The subject of discussion, in what- 
 ever point of view we may contemplate it, is most 
 important ; but in that which regards the inter- 
 position of Great Britain in the settlement of a 
 government for France, it is of higher importance, 
 and demands more serious consideration, than per- 
 haps any question which has occurred within 
 living memory. In order to justify this inter- 
 ference, the noble Lord has taken two grounds. 
 First, he has argued the abstract point, whether 
 under any circumstances it is competent for one 
 nation to intermeddle with the internal govern- 
 ment of another: and secondly, whether, under 
 
 * Lord Castlereagh had alluded to what was said by Sir S. 
 Romilly on the subject of Lord Clancarty's despatch of the 6th 
 of May 1815. See page 71. 
 
 G 4
 
 88 ADDRESS UPON THE 
 
 the peculiar circumstances of the present case, 
 Great Britain had a right to interfere for the pur- 
 pose of imposing a government upon the French 
 nation. On the first of these questions (though 
 the noble Lord has widely enlarged upon it, and 
 upon other topics connected with it, as whether 
 one government is at any time called on to assist 
 another against revolted subjects, and whether it 
 is justifiable to interpose for the protection of in- 
 dividuals persecuted for their religious tenets) 
 on the first of these questions it is not my inten- 
 tion to trouble the House, not merely on account 
 of the various considerations which its discussion 
 must involve, but because it is wholly beside the 
 real subject of dispute, which is included in the 
 second branch into which the noble Lord has 
 divided his inquiry. 
 
 " Sir, to justify our interposition with the 
 internal affairs of France, to show that this 
 principle of foreign interference for which the 
 advocates of legitimacy are now so anxious, has 
 been recognized by this country, the noble Lord 
 has referred us to the Triple and Quadruple Al- 
 liances, and imagining them to be cases in point, 
 has taunted the Whigs of the present day with a 
 total dereliction of their ancient principles. Cer- 
 tainly the charge cannot be retorted on the mo- 
 dern Tories. No one will accuse the noble Lord 
 ancj his followers of having degenerated from the 
 tenets of theiy fathers, after having revived the
 
 TREATIES WITH FOREIGN POWERS. 89 
 
 long-exploded doctrines of passive obedience and 
 indefeasible right ! But the precedents which the 
 noble Lord adduces are wholly inapplicable. He 
 forgets, in the eager indulgence of his irony, the 
 principal facts of the cases to which he has 
 chosen to refer. The House, however, will not 
 fail to recollect what it has suited the purpose of 
 the noble Lord to overlook. Sir, the object of 
 our ancestors, it is well known, was to resist those 
 very principles which their pretended admirers 
 are now labouring to establish. They combined 
 with foreign powers not to uphold the claims of 
 despots, but to guarantee the rights of nations; 
 they confederated with their allies not for the 
 purpose of imposing particular dynasties or forms 
 of government upon other states, but to prevent 
 the subversion of their own liberties, and to se- 
 cure a succession established by the free voice of 
 the people in opposition to the doctrines of legiti- 
 macy! These were the objects of our predeces- 
 sors in the Treaties which have been referred to 
 on this occasion ; this is the principle of foreign 
 interference which has been sanctioned by their 
 authority, and which the noble Lord, in his short- 
 lived triumph, has cited in justification of our 
 present conduct towards France. 
 
 " Looking back to the repeated declarations 
 of the Allies, but more particularly to those of the 
 British Government, the question is, whether, 
 after those declarations in the face of Europe,
 
 90 ADDRESS UPON THE 
 
 this Country can, with any regard to consistency, 
 restore the Bourbons in opposition to the known 
 and expressed wishes of the French people? To 
 those who had not witnessed the acts of the Bri- 
 tish Cabinet, and who had only referred to its 
 professions, it would seem strange that at this day 
 such a discussion should be necessary. During the 
 whole course of the war, Ministers asserted (with 
 what sincerity is now obvious) that its object was 
 not to replace a particular family on the throne of 
 France. Every insinuation to the contrary was 
 repelled with indignation. What was the answer 
 returned to the lamented Member for Bedford 
 (never more to be lamented than at the present 
 moment), when he demanded of the noble Lord 
 whether the proclamation of the Duke of Wel- 
 lington, professing that the object of renewed 
 hostilities was to restore the House of Bourbon, 
 had the sanction of Ministers? What, I ask, was 
 the reply given to my lamented Friend ? Why, 
 that the very supposition was a calumny upon 
 the character of Government, whose only object, 
 as it had all along professed, was to remove the 
 individual who had placed himself at the head of 
 the French nation, and whose authority was in- 
 consistent with the peace and safety of Europe. 
 The Declaration of the Prince Regent, on ratifying 
 the Treaty of the 25th of March, was exactly to 
 the same effect. His Royal Highness stated, 
 that ( the Treaty was not to be considered as
 
 TREATIES WITH FOREIGN POWERS. 91 
 
 binding His Britannic Majesty to prosecute the 
 war with a view of imposing upon France any 
 particular government.' " 
 
 Lord Castlereagh. " Will the honourable 
 and learned Member read the passage immedi- 
 ately succeeding ? " 
 
 Sir Samuel Romilly. " Willingly. -The De- 
 claration then goes on to state, that, ' however 
 solicitous the Prince Regent must be to see His 
 Most Christian Majesty restored, and however 
 anxious he is to contribute, in conjunction with 
 his allies, to so auspicious an event, he neverthe- 
 less deems himself called upon to make this de- 
 claration, on the exchange of ratifications, as 
 well in consideration of what is due to His Most 
 Christian Majesty's interests in France, as in con- 
 formity to the principles upon which the British 
 Government has invariably regulated its conduct/ 
 Does the noble Lord mean to assert that the 
 latter part of this Declaration has been designedly 
 framed to render nugatory every thing that pre- 
 ceded it? What must be the duplicity of the 
 British Government, if such be the case : What 
 will be the reproach which must attach to its 
 character, if, whilst so solemnly asserting that the 
 only object of the war was to remove Buonaparte, 
 it shall, in truth, be found to have entertained the 
 secret and resolved design of compelling the French 
 nation to submit to the family of Bourbon ? 
 
 " The Declaration of the Prince Regent was
 
 92 
 
 followed by the letter of Lord Clancarty, of the 
 6th of May, to which I referred on the first day of 
 this session. Buonaparte, on his arrival at Paris, 
 had written a letter to the Prince Regent, offering 
 to abide by the stipulations of the Treaty of Paris, 
 which letter was transmitted to Lord Clancarty, 
 to be laid by him before the assembled Sovereigns 
 at Vienna. The result of their deliberations, as 
 communicated by his Lordship, was consistent 
 with the previous declarations of our ovvn Govern- 
 ment. * After reading this paper,' said Lord 
 Clancarty, f the general opinion appeared to be, 
 that no answer should be returned, and no notice 
 whatever taken of the proposal. But one opinion 
 has appeared to direct the councils of the several 
 Sovereigns. They adhere, and from the com- 
 mencement have never ceased to adhere, to their 
 Declaration of the 13th of March, with respect to 
 the actual Ruler of France. They are in a state 
 of hostility with him and his adherents, not from 
 choice, but from necessity; because, past ex- 
 perience has shown, that no faith will be kept by 
 him, and that no reliance can be placed on the 
 professions of one who has hitherto no longer re- 
 garded the most solemn compacts, than as it may 
 have suited his own convenience to observe them.' 
 His Lordship afterwards goes on to state ' They 
 are at war, then, for the purpose of obtaining some 
 security for their own independence, and for the 
 reconquest of that peace and permanent tran-
 
 TREATIES WITH FOREIGN POWERS. 93 
 
 quillity for which the world has so long panted. 
 They are not even at war for the greater or less 
 proportion of security which France can afford 
 them, but because France, under its present Chief, 
 is unable to afford them any security whatever. 
 In this war, they do not desire to interfere with 
 any legitimate right of the French people; they 
 have no desire to oppose the claim of' that nation to 
 choose its own form of government, or intention to 
 trench in any respect upon its independence as a 
 great and free people ' Then follows the passage 
 which the noble Lord has charged we with omit- 
 ting ( They no otherwise seek to influence the 
 proceedings of the French in the choice of this or 
 any other dynasty or form of government than 
 may be essential to the safety and permanent 
 tranquility of the rest of Europe ; such reasonable 
 security being afforded by France in this respect, 
 as other states have a legitimate right to claim in 
 their own defence/ 
 
 " Such, Sir, was the communication made by 
 Lord Clancarty. I do not affect to be so well 
 acquainted as the noble Lord (whose abilities in 
 that way are universally acknowledged) with the 
 mysteries of diplomatic language ; but it seems to 
 me that, in ordinary acceptation, these words are 
 incapable of any double sense. The whole letter 
 is a disclaimer of war for the restoration of the 
 Bourbons, professing it to be undertaken against 
 Buonaparte alone, on the ground that his former 
 
 4
 
 94 ADDRESS UPON THE 
 
 character was such as to preclude all reliance 
 upon his good faith. The right of the French 
 people to choose their own governor and govern- 
 ment is distinctly admitted. How the noble Lord 
 will reconcile these contradictions between pro- 
 fession and practice, is as mysterious as the lan*- 
 guage of Lord Clan car ty, if it can be made to 
 bear a double construction. The effect of these 
 declarations in France, was to lull the people 
 into a supposed security, and to prevent that re- 
 sistance which might have been made even after 
 the battle of Waterloo. The assemblies in Paris 
 deemed it useless to make exertions for their in- 
 dependence which they did not believe to be in 
 danger, and many were as anxious to remove 
 Buonaparte, as they would have .been (had they 
 anticipated the event) to exclude a Bourbon from 
 the throne. Without doubt the noble Lord was 
 aware of the effect which his soothing professions 
 would have in putting an end to hostilities which 
 might otherwise have been protracted, though 
 with what success it is not necessary to determine. 
 The forcible restoration of Louis the Eighteenth 
 soon succeeded, for the King followed in the rear 
 of the allied armies which possessed themselves of 
 Paris, and prevented all possibility of a free choice 
 on the part of the nation. 
 
 " Sir, it is a mockery to talk of a voluntary 
 election under such circumstances of compulsion. 
 Those who had fondly relied on the faith of the
 
 TREATIES WITH FOREIGN POWERS. 95 
 
 Allies, not yet victorious, were now awakened from 
 their delusion. The capital had submitted, and 
 every promise of the conquerors was forgotten. 
 Nor have the Members of the British Parliament, 
 those, at least, who, confiding in the solemn 
 pledges of the noble Lord and his Colleagues, were 
 induced to vote for the renewal of hostilities, less 
 reason to complain. What must be their feelings 
 as they behold the disgrace which will attach to 
 their Country in consequence of the duplicity and 
 bad faith of those whom they have supported? 
 What must be their indignation and regret in re- 
 flecting, that they themselves, by their credulity, 
 have been made accessary to this disgrace ? Sir, 
 let me entreat the House to pause. Before it 
 concurs in this Address, let it reflect on the prin- 
 ciple which it is about to establish on the ex- 
 ample which it will leave to other ages and to 
 other nations. The time may come, when Russia, 
 Prussia, and France, shall be confederated against 
 England ; when an English King is to be forced 
 upon a people who have expelled him. The ex- 
 ample which we sanction this night may then be 
 followed by our enemies ; and as we now maintain 
 that the revolutionary politics of France are in- 
 consistent with the safety of Europe, it may 
 then be contended, that the principles of English 
 constitutional liberty are equally dangerous to the 
 power of Sovereigns and the obedience of subjects. 
 Even at this day the freedom with which the
 
 96 ADDRESS UPON THE 
 
 press of this country has arraigned the crimes and 
 exposed the follies of Princes, pointing at them 
 the finger of public scorn and contempt, has ex- 
 cited the indignation of foreign governments, and 
 has made our newspapers the objects of jealousy 
 and prohibition. They are accused of breaking 
 in upon the sanctity of Sovereigns, and of making 
 no distinction between the peasant and the prince. 
 Who is able to determine how long the Sovereigns 
 of Europe may permit this system to exist, or 
 how long a period will elapse before they com- 
 bine against England to crush this fearless inde- 
 pendence ? Surely there is nothing absurd in this 
 prospect, when even the noble Lord has spoken 
 of the dangers resulting from the promulgation 
 of the principles of modern Whiggism ; and, re- 
 peating most probably the lesson which he has 
 learnt in the well-disciplined school of the Con- 
 tinent, has reprobated even the freedom with 
 which debates are conducted in the British Par- 
 liament! If the noble Lord can be induced so 
 severely to reprobate this liberty of speech and of 
 the press, who can say how soon his efforts may 
 not be aided from quarters with which he has 
 been recently so much connected ? Our army, 
 too, it is to be recollected, on its return from 
 France, will be well prepared to second his efforts, 
 and to extinguish our liberties under the pretext 
 of their deviating into licence. 
 
 " With regard to the securities, which are
 
 TREATIES WITH FOREIGN POWERS. 97 
 
 said to have been obtained, for a lasting peace, I 
 can by no means view them in the light which 
 the noble Lord requires. To me they appear to 
 be such as are rather calculated to defeat than to 
 ensure the object. Their inevitable consequence 
 will be to excite and keep alive the resentment of 
 a whole nation. When the noble Lord speaks of 
 the popularity of England in France, and of the 
 general approbation of the measures of our Cabi- 
 net, it would have been as well if he had pro- 
 duced some evidence of his assertions. What he 
 has said on the subject of contributions, is equally 
 unsupported. It will be difficult to prove that 
 the English is the only nation that feels taxation, 
 and that the French will disregard it, even when 
 enforced by a military power. The people of 
 France must necessarily feel when they are called 
 upon to pay taxes for the support of foreign sol- 
 diers, that they owe those taxes to the restoration 
 of the King, and that this restoration has been 
 effected by the English nation. With regard also 
 to stripping the Louvre, independent of the in- 
 justice of the transaction, to me it appears, that 
 but one opinion can exist as to its impolicy. It 
 is impossible that such an act should fail to in- 
 flict a sense of disgrace upon the people of that 
 country, and excite in their minds a spirit of re- 
 sentment against those who have despoiled them 
 of a collection, so much an object of their na- 
 tional pride. The honourable Gentlemen opposite 
 
 VOL. II. H
 
 98 ADDRESS UPON THE TREATIES, &C. 
 
 testify their surprise at the mention of the word 
 injustice, as applied to this transaction ; and, 
 perhaps, I might have expressed my sentiments of 
 it better, by saying 1 , that I am far from being 
 satisfied with the justice of the proceeding. It is 
 said that these monuments of art are the fruits of 
 unjust war; but are they not also the subject of 
 various treaties, by which they have been formally 
 conceded to France? When I hear so much of 
 the fine t moral lesson ' which we have by these 
 means taught that country, I cannot avoid recol- 
 lecting some circumstances with regard to one of 
 the principal actors in this spoliation: I allude to 
 Austria, and to her seizure of the Corinthian 
 Horses. Austria restored to Venice her Horses, 
 but not her Republic or her Independence ! It is 
 remarkable, too, that these Horses are conceded 
 to France by the same Treaty (that of Campo 
 Formio), by which Venice is transferred to the 
 dominion of Austria. 
 
 " Sir, on this, and on many other topics con- 
 nected with the proposed Address, I might yet 
 enlarge ; but I have already trespassed too long 
 upon the attention of the House. Without going 
 further into the merits of these questions, I shall 
 give my vote for the Amendment, upon a firm be- 
 lief that the Peace is utterly insecure, and that it 
 will only last until France shall have acquired 
 strength for resistance, when her hostility will 
 burst out more rancorous and more fatal than
 
 INSOLVENT DEBTORS. 99 
 
 ever. I know that these opinions do not concur 
 with those of a large majority of this House ; but 
 they are my honest persuasion, and I deem it 
 therefore my duty to express them." 
 
 After a long debate the House divided, when 
 the numbers were, 
 
 For the Amendment - - - ' - 77 
 Against it-------- 240 
 
 Majority against the Amendment 163 
 The original Address was then put and agreed to. 
 
 INSOLVENT DEBTORS. 
 
 March 14/A, 1816. 
 
 MR. Lockhart moved for leave to bring in a Bill 
 to suspend the power of His Majesty's Commis- 
 sioner of the Court of Insolvent Debtors, to re 
 ceive Petitions for the Discharge of Insolvents. 
 
 Sir Samuel Rornilly. " However I may differ 
 from the honourable and learned Gentleman in the 
 opinions which I entertain on this subject, I do 
 not rise to offer any opposition to his present 
 motion. The question to which he has called the 
 attention of the House, is one which demands its 
 
 H 2
 
 100 INSOLVENT DEBTORS. 
 
 most serious consideration. There can be no 
 doubt but that the greatest frauds and abuses have 
 taken place under the present Insolvent Act, and 
 that the interposition of the Legislature is loudly 
 called for to investigate and remove the causes of 
 the evil. However correct in principle, that Act 
 must be admitted, even by its authors-, to have 
 many defects. Still, I trust, that the House will 
 not consent to repeal it altogether ; or, at least, 
 that it will not precipitate such a measure without 
 further inquiry, and without substituting some 
 remedy for those grievances which this law was 
 intended to alleviate. Let the House recollect 
 what was the state of the law before this Act 
 passed : unlimited imprisonment of tbe Debtor - r 
 condemnation for life to tbe physical and moral 
 contagion of a gaol, and this frequently for failing 
 to perform what misfortune bad rendered impos- 
 sible! It was in vain that the Creditor might 
 feel disposed to relax. The law operated as an 
 effectual restraint upon bis humanity ; for, to dis- 
 charge the Debtor was to cancel the debt. It 
 was only by the interposition of the Legislature 
 for the purpose of relieving the overflowing prisons 
 of the country ; by some ex post facto law, anni- 
 hilating all past engagements, and leading, by its 
 abuses, to almost greater evils than those which 
 it redressed, that the unfortunate Prisoner was at 
 last restored to society. 
 
 " Is this a system to which this House ought
 
 INSOLVENT DEBTORS. 101 
 
 to return ; or can the defects of the present Act, 
 numerous as they may appear, be put in compe- 
 tition with the evils which existed under the old 
 law? The course which I shall take the liberty of 
 recommending to the House, as most conducive 
 to the public interest on this occasion, will be, to 
 appoint a Committee with powers to examine the 
 different persons whom experience and inquiry 
 may have made competent judges on the subject. 
 Much useful information may be obtained, not 
 only from the Commissioner of the Insolvent 
 Court, but from the professional Gentlemen who 
 have been in the habit of practising in it By avail- 
 ing ourselves of these means, we shall be enabled 
 fairly to estimate the merits or defects of this Act, 
 and to apply such alterations as the case may 
 seem to require. I have no doubt but that many 
 of its Clauses have been found wholly inadequate 
 to their desired end; still I must again repeat 
 my belief in the justice and propriety of the 
 principle on which the Act is founded. There is 
 nothing, I am persuaded, in the English cha- 
 racter to render a Cessio Bonorum less applicable 
 to this than to any other country. 
 
 " One of the greatest evils of which the public 
 has a right to complain, is the difficulty of attach- 
 ing the Debtor's estate. Let this, as far as it is 
 practicable, be removed. Let an end be put to 
 Sham Pleas, Writs of Error, and the various 
 other artifices by which the fraudulent are now 
 
 H3
 
 102 INSOLVENT DEBTORS. 
 
 enabled to evade or to defer the fulfilment of their 
 engagements. Let property of every description 
 be subjected to the debts of its owner. This 
 would be, indeed, affording a remedy to Creditors; 
 this would indeed operate as an effectual control 
 upon unprincipled Debtors. But where is the 
 consistency of allowing the Creditor to keep his 
 Debtor in gaol for not doing that which is per- 
 haps impracticable, and yet forbid him to recover 
 a debt, where there may be the most ample means 
 for its discharge ? I trust that this subject will 
 now undergo the fullest inquiry; an inquiry as 
 essential to the security of the Debtor as of the 
 Creditor. Their interests indeed are the same, and 
 ought never to be divided. What is for the ad- 
 vantage of the one, can never eventually be pre- 
 judicial to the other." 
 
 Sir Samuel Romilly concluded, by adverting to 
 an opinion prevalent, that he had taken a part in 
 framing the last Insolvent Act. This he dis- 
 claimed. He had never been consulted on the 
 Bill, nor even seen it before its introduction into 
 Parliament. 
 
 After a few words from the Attorney General, 
 Mr. Brougham, &c. leave was given to Mr. Lock- 
 hart to bring in the proposed Bill. Sir Samuel 
 Romilly then moved for a Select Committee to in- 
 quire into the effects produced by the Acts of the 
 54th Geo. III. c. 23, and of the 58th Geo. III. 
 c. 102, for the Relief of Insolvent Debtors, and to
 
 ALIEN BILL. 105 
 
 report their observations thereupon to the House. 
 
 After some objections from Mr, Lockhart, the 
 
 House divided : 
 
 For the Motion - - - 82 
 Against it-----7i 
 
 Majority 
 
 ALIEN BILL. 
 
 May \Qfft, 1816. 
 
 JLoRD Castlereagh moved the order of the day for 
 the second reading- of the Alien Bill. The Motion 
 was supported by Mr. Addington, the Solicitor 
 General, &c, Sir Samuel Romilly said, " Sir, I 
 will not follow my learned Friend (the Solicitor 
 General) through all the legal details into which 
 he has diverged. I rise rather to bring back the 
 debate to its proper channel, to divert the dis- 
 cussion from topics, in which few but professional 
 Members can join, to those broader and more 
 liberal views of the subject, into which others 
 are equally competent to enter. What, though 
 the common law right of the Cr6wn, though 
 some obsolete precedent, drawn from the oblivion 
 
 ii 4
 
 104 ALIEN BILL. 
 
 of ages, should be found to lend its sanction to 
 the proposed measure, it will still remain for the 
 Legislature to consider and determine how far its 
 operation may be adapted to the present state and 
 circumstances of Society ! It is with the views 
 and feelings of statesmen rather than of lawyers 
 that we ought to come to the decision of this great 
 question. In saying this, however, let me not be 
 accused of shrinking from the discussion which 
 has been challenged by my learned Friend. Let 
 me not be supposed afraid to risque my opinion, as 
 a lawyer, upon the subject ; humble and unim- 
 portant as it may be, I do not hesitate to avow it, 
 as being in direct opposition to. that of my learned 
 Friend. It is my firm belief, that the King has 
 not, and that he never had, the power which has 
 been arrogated to him, of sending, by his prero- 
 gative, Aliens out of the country in time of peace. 
 There is no authority for any such doctrine. The 
 loose dictum of Blackstone, unsupported by re- 
 ference or precedent (which he gives for almost 
 every other proposition in his work), inconsist- 
 ent with every acknowledged principle of Eng- 
 lish policy, and contradicted even by his own 
 interpretations of Magna Charta, deserves not 
 that name : much less the assertion of Sir Edward 
 Northey, the opinion of an Attorney General at 
 the instance of a Secretary of State! This surely 
 is no authority to influence the House on any 
 point of constitutional law : if such were to. be aci-
 
 ALIEN BILL. 105 
 
 mitted, there is no doctrine, however dangerous, 
 that may not without difficulty be supported by 
 having access to the repositories of the Secretary 
 of State and the Council Office." 
 
 The Solicitor General. " I quoted the opinion 
 from print from Mr. Chalmers's book." 
 
 Sir Samuel Romilly. " It is of little conse- 
 quence whether my learned Friend or Mr. 
 Chalmers has been at the pains of ransacking 
 these Offices. The opinion, whoever may have 
 the merit of having first discovered it, must have 
 come from thence. With respect to Sir Edward 
 Northey, he may, for any thing I know to the 
 contrary, have been an excellent man, but there 
 is nothing in his opinion, as an Attorney General, 
 that ought to influence this House. I have never 
 heard his name mentioned as one of much weight 
 in the profession. I recollect, indeed, that he 
 was Attorney General under several administra- 
 tions, and that he is mentioned by Dean Swift, 
 though not very respectfully ; but among legal au- 
 thorities I never recollect to have heard his name. 
 
 " But turning from such topics at the present 
 moment, I would call on the House to consider 
 what individuals will fall within the operation of 
 this Bill. My learned Friend seems to have mis- 
 taken its objects and principle : he had supposed 
 it to be framed for the sole purpose of excluding 
 Foreigners from hereafter entering into this country 
 Without the permission of His Majesty's Govern^
 
 106 ALIEN BILL. 
 
 ment. He describes it as a Bill to prevent Alien 
 Enemies from coming amongst us under the mask 
 of Alien Friends. But the measure goes farther; 
 it extends not merely to persons hereafter coming 
 into this country, but to 20,000 individuals al- 
 ready domiciled here ; to individuals, who, in 
 many cases, by long residence in this country, by 
 having carried on business here, by having their 
 property here, by having married into English 
 families, and by having made England their 
 country and their home, have become, as it were, 
 a portion of ourselves. These, unless naturalized, 
 are still Aliens in the interpretation of the Law, 
 and will be exposed to all the severities of the 
 present measure. I cannot better point out to the 
 House the persons who will fall under the Act, 
 than by mentioning the difficulties which His 
 Majesty's Ministers throw in the way of all Bills 
 of Naturalization. It is a standing order of the 
 Lords (not certainly a very constitutional one) 
 that no Naturalization Bill shall be read a second 
 time in their House without a Certificate of the 
 individual's character from the Secretary of State. 
 This Certificate, however, is almost always re- 
 fused by the Secretary of State ; and that, for no 
 other reason, than because persons naturalized are 
 released from the operation of the Alien Bill, and 
 the consequent control of Ministers! An extra- 
 ordinary case of this kind has lately come to my 
 knowledge. Jt is the case of a native of Germany
 
 ALIEN BILL. 107 
 
 who left his country at eleven years of age, and 
 who has resided for more than half a century in 
 England, where he is now possessed of consider- 
 able property. He was for many years engaged 
 in the flax trade ; and an Act passed in the 
 reign of Charles II. for the encouragement of 
 that manufacture, declares that persons so em- 
 ployed for three years, shall have all the privi- 
 leges of natural-born subjects *. In these circum- 
 stances, a friend of his devised to him and ano- 
 ther person real estates of the value of 260,000/. 
 upon trust, to sell them and pay legacies and 
 debts. He contracted to sell them, and then, for 
 the first time, it was discovered that the Act of 
 Charles II. had not so completely naturalized 
 him, as to allow of his making the necessary title 
 to the estates. He was, therefore, induced to 
 apply to the Secretary of State for his Certificate, 
 that an Act of Naturalization might be passed ; 
 but, although all these facts were stated in his 
 Memorial, and although his application was sup- 
 ported by many Members of this House and most 
 respectable Merchants, all giving him an unim- 
 peachable character for loyalty and moral con- 
 duct, the Certificate was refused. I might specify 
 many instances of a similar nature, though none 
 perhaps equal in magnitude to this. 
 
 " Let not the House believe, that it is merely 
 
 * 15 Car. JI. c. 15.
 
 108 ALIEN BILL. 
 
 called on to vote against the introduction of too 
 many foreigners into the country. This is a view 
 of the subject which I particularly wish it to 
 avoid. The return of Aliens made to Parliament 
 is the best criterion for deciding the question. 
 From this it appears, that the number of Aliens in 
 the country during the war, amounted to about 
 18,000, and that at present they are under 23,000. 
 It is impossible for the House to know the grounds 
 on which the Bill stands, if the mere unsupported 
 assertion of the noble Lord (Castlereagh), that 
 he can state a much stronger case for the enact- 
 ment of the measure now than in 1814, is at 
 once to be credited. If there exists any such case, 
 why has he not stated it ? But the fact is, that 
 in 1814 the number of Aliens was 21,616, and 
 that it now amounts to 22,619, making an increase 
 of one thousand and three souls, men, women, and 
 children ! This, without doubt, is a very strong 
 case; or. to use the expression of the noble Lord, 
 a much stronger case than in 1814! It is said, 
 however, by a right honourable Gentleman op- 
 posite (Mr. Addington), that we are soon to have 
 an increase of Aliens.-^-On what is this supposi- 
 tion founded ? Do Ministers foresee any change in 
 the state of Europe which will cause strangers to 
 seek that liberty here of which they are bereaved 
 at home? The right honourable Gentleman speaks 
 mysteriously, and I trust he may be mistaken. 
 The present Bill, however, is a preparation against
 
 ALIEN BILL, 109 
 
 such an event a preparation on the part of Go- 
 vernment to exclude from our shores the desolate 
 and the oppressed perhaps to deliver over to 
 dungeons and to death those, who relying on 
 English policy, and English justice, shall flee to 
 this country as to a place of refuge against the 
 oppressor ! 
 
 " Sir, the explanation which has been given 
 in the case of. the two Dutch merchants*, is 
 not satisfactory. The right honourable Gentle- 
 man has admitted that the direction for sending 
 them away came from the Foreign Office, and 
 the noble Lord at the head of that department 
 does not venture to deny that the interference on 
 his part took place at the instance of a Foreign 
 Minister ! It is said, that this discretion has been 
 exercised with mildness ; as far as numbers go, the 
 powers of the Act do not appear to have been 
 abused. But whilst I give to Ministers the credit 
 which their forbearance may have deserved, I 
 would ask the House, what occasion exists for the 
 renewal of a Bill, under which, from its first 
 enactment in 1793 down to the present day, so 
 few removals have taken place? Is it, that 
 greater danger is to be apprehended by us, though 
 
 * This was a case mentioned by Mr. Baring on a former 
 debate. It related to two Dutch merchants of the names of 
 Baudet and Labouchere, who, having come over to this country 
 on commercial purposes, were sent out of it by order of the 
 Secretary of State, without notice or explanation.
 
 110 ALIEN BILL. 
 
 at peace, than when the revolutionary frenzy of 
 France was at its height? 
 
 " It was proved, satisfactorily proved, in one 
 case, that Ministers had abused their power I 
 mean in the case of De Berenger : they seized his 
 papers under the Alien Bill, and then gave them 
 over to be used against him in a civil prosecution; 
 though neither under the Alien Bill, nor by the 
 common Law, had the Secretary of State any 
 right whatever to seize his papers. It has been 
 asserted, indeed, in this House, that, as he was 
 charged with a misdemeanor, his papers might be 
 seized ; but the contrary has been solemnly de- 
 cided in the case of Entick against Carrington. 
 The admirable judgment of Lord Camden in 
 this case has lately been published in the new 
 edition of the State Trials*, a work edited with 
 such judgment, learning, and industry, as to 
 render it an invaluable addition to our stock of 
 knowledge both in history and law. 
 
 " Sir, the papers of an Alien are his own, and 
 are as sacred as those of a natural-born subject. 
 What an engine of oppression would be put into 
 the hands of Government if they were otherwise ; if 
 Ministers could not only send away Aliens, at the 
 instance of a foreign power, but were permitted to 
 seize and examine their papers! So little was it 
 imagined, at the Peace of Arniens, that the King 
 
 * Howel's State Trials, vol. xix. p. 1030. 
 
 2
 
 ALIEN BILL. Ill 
 
 could send back foreigners to their own country 
 (which is what Mr. Justice Blackstone asserts), 
 that when by that Treaty it was stipulated, that 
 persons charged with murder, forgery, and frau- 
 dulent bankruptcy, should be mutually delivered 
 up, it was found necessary to have recourse to 
 Parliament to enable the Crown to perform its 
 stipulation. In the same manner, notwithstanding 
 the height to which my learned Friend has en- 
 deavoured to exalt the Royal Prerogative on the 
 present occasion > his colleagues have still deemed 
 it expedient to call in the power of Parliament t<> 
 the assistance of the Crown ! Of the mischief, of 
 the destruction which an Act like this may oc- 
 casion to individuals, it is almost unnecessary to 
 cite examples. In 1803, no less than seventeen 
 hundred persons were ordered by His Majesty's 
 Proclamation to quit this country, but being re- 
 fused admission into France, were allowed to 
 return to England, where they have since resided, 
 and conducted themselves with the utmost pro- 
 priety. What, however, would have been their 
 fate, had they been received in France during the 
 reign of terror during the ferocious despotism of 
 Robespierre ? Can any one doubt, but that they 
 would have been all consigned to the scaffold ? 
 Sir, I am myself acquainted with a most worthy 
 man, a teacher of languages in this country, 
 who, on the misrepresentations of a rival teacher, 
 was ordered to leave England. Fortunately he
 
 112 ALIEN BILL. 
 
 found friends to vindicate his character, and to 
 get the order for his removal recalled. But what 
 would have been the situation of this poor man, 
 had the order remained unannulled, ha,d he 
 been exiled in his old age from a country where he 
 had long resided, in respectability and comfort, 
 to one in which he would have been a beggar and 
 a stranger ? Even these cases are sufficient to 
 show the evils to which the Alien Act may lead, 
 though its execution should be committed to the 
 mildest hands. 
 
 " But there is a remedy, it has been said, 
 against all these abuses, and that is, the power 
 of appealing to the Privy Council. Here the ac- 
 cused will be heard in vindication of his conduct. 
 Here he may refute the charges brought against 
 him. But how is he to know those charges? And 
 how is he to defend himself without such know- 
 ledge ? A man, for example, may have been se- 
 cretly charged with saying, that he wished the 
 French success, or that he should be happy to 
 see Buonaparte carried in triumph through the 
 streets of London. Well ! the accused is sent for, 
 but is permitted neither to be heard by Counsel *, 
 nor even to know the sum of his offence. If 
 guilty, he may perhaps suspect the grounds of his 
 accusation, and may be prepared, in some degree, 
 to palliate his misconduct. But what is the situ- 
 
 * This was decided in the case of the Baron D'lmbert.
 
 ALIEN BILL. 113 
 
 ation of the innocent, called on to defend himself 
 against charges, to the very nature of which he 
 may be altogether a stranger ? Yet this is what is 
 called a Power of Appeal*. Perhaps the indivi- 
 dual may be ignorant of our language; and though 
 he may find some of the Lords of the Privy Coun- 
 cil who can speak French, he may possibly belong 
 to a country, the language of which is unknown 
 to all of them. Such a case requires no comment ; 
 it speaks for itself. Better would it be, that the 
 Clause should be at once blotted out altogether, 
 than be permitted to disgrace the Statute Book by 
 its cruel mockery ! 
 
 * In a subsequent stage of the Bill, Sir James Mackintosh 
 proposed a Clause allowing the Alien a summary of the matters 
 alleged against him, and a reasonable time to prepare his defence; 
 and making it lawful for him to summon and examine witnesses 
 on oath before the Privy Council, and to be heard before them 
 either by himself or Counsel. 
 
 Lord Castlereagh thought the proposed Clause would be equi- 
 valent to the repeal of the Alien Law, which was a matter of 
 policy not to be executed according to judicial forms j and added, 
 that it would be only giving the Alien an opportunity of reviling 
 the Government, and putting Ministry on their trial ! 
 
 Sir John Newport asked what sort of a law was that, which 
 would be defeated by the most distant approach towards justice > 
 
 Sir Samuel Romilly animadverted, in terms of the keenest 
 poignancy, upon the arguments of Lord Castlereagh. The Clause 
 was, however, lost, as well as another proposed by Lord Milton, 
 to prevent the Act from extending to any alien woman married 
 to a natural- born subject 1 Credits, Potteri ! 
 
 VOL. II. I
 
 114 ALIEN BILL. 
 
 " Another injustice, of which this Act is guilty, 
 is, that it establishes every man a foreigner, and 
 throws the burden on him to prove that he is not 
 so. This proof it is, in many cases, difficult to 
 adduce. For instance, if a man has been natu- 
 ralized by residing seven years in a British Planta- 
 tion, or has been born abroad of British parents, 
 how is he always to establish the fact? Even 
 when a man is a native of this country, it is fre- 
 quently a matter of difficulty to prove it. I am 
 astonished that a provision like this, so repugnant 
 to every principle of justice, should never even 
 have been noticed by my honourable and learned 
 Friend. 
 
 " An appeal has been made to the precedent, 
 as it seems to be considered, of 1793. My learned 
 Friend, assuming the policy and wisdom of an 
 Alien Bill under the circumstances of that period, 
 deprecates and condemns all opposition to the re- 
 newal of it now. Whether the situation of Eu- 
 rope in any degree justified that measure, it is at 
 this moment unnecessary to inquire. But admit- 
 ting, for the sake of the argument, that the pre- 
 mises of my learned Friend are correct, I may still 
 be allowed to dissent from his conclusion. The 
 necessity of an Alien Bill in 1793, however obvi- 
 ous, would afford no proof of the policy of such 
 an Act in 1816. The circumstances distinguish- 
 ing the two periods are altogether different ; nor 
 do I believe, that even Mr, Pitt, whatever were
 
 ALIEN BILL. 115 
 
 the measures to which he resorted In the troubled 
 days of the French Revolution, would have ven- 
 tured to propose a measure like this in time of 
 profound peace. Not so his disciples. They are 
 awed by no such scruples or apprehensions. They 
 at once rush in, where their mightier Master had 
 not dared to tread. 
 
 " Sir, it was once the policy of this country to 
 encourage foreigners. Every writer on the British 
 Constitution has expatiated on the liberality of its 
 Laws towards foreigners. Even in the dark ages 
 of our history this wise policy prevailed. By a 
 statute of the 27th of Edward the Third, Mer- 
 chant Strangers and others were encouraged to 
 visit this country. In the reign of Elizabeth, not- 
 withstanding the peculiar circumstances of the 
 times, and the bitter spirit of hostility between 
 England and Spain, the same liberal policy con- 
 tinued to be evinced on the part of this country. 
 Descending further towards our own times, we find 
 an Act of Queen Anne (though not of long dura- 
 tion), which even naturalized all Protestant 
 Strangers * . Such was the policy, of England in 
 better times ; such are the foundations on which 
 she established the fabric of her power, and to 
 which she has been indebted for uninterrupted 
 ages of greatness and glory. The asylum which 
 
 * 7 Ann. c. 5, repealed by 10 Ann. c. 5, except in what 
 Utes to th children of English parents born abroad. 
 
 i > 
 
 re-
 
 116 ALIEN BILL. 
 
 she so freely offered to the persecuted of all reli- 
 gions, was amply repaid by the accession of fo- 
 reign skill and foreign capital to her own previous 
 resources, and by the admiration and respect which 
 her magnanimity never failed to extort even from 
 the most hostile States. But this generous policy 
 is to be from henceforward renounced. The prin- 
 ciples of our fathers, their love of liberty, their 
 sympathy with the oppressed, are all forgotten, 
 and are superseded by a system, as injurious to 
 the interests, as it is disgraceful to the character, 
 gf the country and age in which we live. 
 
 (<i Sir, in whatever point of view I consider 
 this measure, whether as standing by itself, or as 
 contrasted with the Alien Bills which have pre- 
 ceded it, I think it equally indefensible." 
 
 The House divided : 
 
 For the second reading - - 141 
 Against it ------ 47 
 
 Majority - - - - -. - 94
 
 t>ERSECUT!ON OF TttE PttOTfiSTANTS. 117 
 
 May 22rf, 1H16. 
 
 SIR SAMUEL ROMILLV. " Sir, I rise to call the at" 
 tention of the House to a subject which has made a 
 deep impression in this country, although it has 
 been but incidentally mentioned within these walls. 
 I allude to the recent Persecutions of the Protest- 
 ants in France. Every Gentleman, who hears me, 
 must know, that in the last Autumn reports 
 reached this country, of extreme acts of violence 
 committed in the southern Departments of France* 
 These reports created a strong sensation in Eng- 
 land. Meetings Were held ; Resolutions were 
 adopted ; and a Subscription for the relief of the 
 sufferers was entered into with that generosity 
 which ever characterizes the British public, when 
 they see occasion for their benevolent interposition. 
 On a sudden, however, an extraordinary turn was 
 given to the popular feeling. Although the meet^ 
 ings which I have described had not taken place 
 without a previous communication with His Ma-* 
 jesty's Ministers, yet the latter subsequently af- 
 fected to think them improper, and evinced a dis- 
 position which, I regret to say, has proved suc- 
 cessful, to damp the ardour of the public mind on 
 
 i 3
 
 118 PERSECUTION OF THE 
 
 the subject. A letter was written by the Duke of 
 Wellington, denying the truth of the statements 
 which had been made, and expressive of His Grace's 
 conviction of the favourable, sentiments of the 
 King of France towards the Protestants. The 
 effect of this letter was very great, and, in allud- 
 ing to it in this House, a noble Lord went so far 
 as to taunt those who had previously mentioned 
 the subject, and to express his hope, that it would 
 be a lesson to them not to take up similar questions 
 on such light grounds. The city of London too, 
 having thought proper to present an Address to 
 the Prince Regent on the occasion, were received 
 very graciously by His Royal Highness, but were 
 given to understand, that although His Royal 
 Highness was perfectly ready to interpose his good 
 offices in favour of the Protestants on a proper oc- 
 casion, yet that this was not a time in which his 
 interference was at all called for. 
 
 " In bringing forward this question at the pre- 
 sent moment, I have no intention of accusing His 
 Majesty's Ministers of criminality. I cannot think 
 so ill of them as to believe, that, if they knew what 
 had really taken place, or in what manner the 
 French Government had conducted itself, they 
 would, from any desire of supporting that Go- 
 vernment, have misrepresented the facts. All that 
 I complain of is, that they have been too credu- 
 lous, and that they have listened with too little 
 suspicion to the assurances of the French Govern-
 
 PROTESTANTS IN PRANCE. 119 
 
 ment on the subject. To the consideration of this 
 question I bring no party feeling. It becomes me 
 to state fairly, and without exaggeration, the facts 
 which, after much anxious inquiry both by letter 
 and in person, have come to my knowledge with 
 respect to it. I may be mistaken; I may have 
 been misinformed ; and I shall be extremely glad 
 to have it proved to me, that the alleged crimes 
 have not been committed. But, after having taken 
 the utmost pains in the investigation, no doubt re- 
 mains in my mind on the subject. Much has been 
 said of the injury which the French Protestants 
 may sustain from the interference of the British 
 public in their behalf. That the denial on the 
 part of the British Authorities of the existence of 
 the alleged outrages, has injured the Protestants 
 I well know. The Duke of Wellington's letter 
 was' printed at Nismes, and scattered about that 
 town with great activity by the Catholics. It has 
 filled the Protestants with the utmost consterna- 
 tion, taking, as it does, from the oppressors, the 
 only restraint to which they had until that period 
 been subject, and from the oppressed their last 
 hope and consolation. So far was the previous ex- 
 pression of British opinion from injuring the Pro- 
 testants, that nothing had afforded them so much 
 real relief. 
 
 " Sir, there are three questions for the House 
 to consider: 1st, Whether the alleged outrages 
 have really been committed ? 2dly, Whether they 
 
 i 4
 
 120 PERSECUTION OF THE 
 
 have proceeded from political or religious causes ? 
 and 3dly, Whether the French Government 
 has afforded any protection to the sufferers ? 
 It will be impossible to give the House an ade- 
 quate idea of the character of the transactions 
 which have taken place in the Department of the 
 Card, the chief seat of the persecution of the Pro- 
 testants (for no general persecution has occurred, 
 nor has any disposition been evinced towards it), 
 without, in the first place, alluding to the condi- 
 tion of that part of France at the time of the 
 restoration of the present King. The Department 
 of the Gard and its neighbourhood were the parts 
 of France, or rather of Europe, in which the doc- 
 trines of the Reformed Religion were first dissemi- 
 nated. The inhabitants of the Mountains of Ce- 
 vennes, for a century before the time of Luther, 
 were distinguished for the purity of their doctrines 
 and the innocence of their lives. They remained 
 unmolested in the enjoyment of their religious 
 opinions until soon after the Reformation, when 
 a persecution of them commenced. This was to- 
 wards the end of the reign of Francis the First, 
 when many villages in that Department were de- 
 stroyed, and the inhabitants, men, women, and 
 children, put to death. There, first appeared the 
 bloody effects of that persecuting spirit which sub- 
 sequently spread over France, and was exhibited 
 in those various massacres so disgraceful to the 
 character of that nation. 
 3
 
 PROTESTANTS IN FRANCE. 121 
 
 " After this, for a period, the Protestants in 
 France enjoyed perfect liberty, during which they 
 resorted in such numbers to Nismes, as to form a 
 large proportion of the population of that place. 
 In 1685, however, the revocation of the Edict of 
 Nantes took place, through the superstition of 
 Louis XIV. and the ambition of his Minister 
 Louvois. Then too those Dragonades were in- 
 vented, the mention of which must cause every 
 one to shudder. Whole provinces were to be con- 
 verted by regiments of dragoons, and the Minister 
 dared to represent to his King, that he had effected 
 an object most agreeable in the sight of God ! The 
 Protestants were proceeded against, not as Pro- 
 testants, but as Heretics, or, as they were called, 
 * les nouveaux convertis? What was their condi- 
 tion until 1787, only two years previous to the Re- 
 volution ? If any persons were found attending 
 Protestant service, they were sent to the galleys 
 for life. The Minister was sentenced to death, 
 and every one harbouring him, or facilitating his 
 escape, was condemned to the galleys. The mar- 
 riages of Protestants were declared illegal ; their 
 children were considered bastards, and might be 
 taken away by the Government, to be educated in 
 the Catholic religion. At seven years of age, a 
 Protestant child was authorized to become a 
 Catholic. 
 
 " It has been said by French Legislators, that, 
 however severe these Laws might be in their en-
 
 12*2 PERSECUTION OP THE 
 
 actments, they were comparatively mild in their 
 administration. And what was the proof adduced 
 of the leniency with which they were adminis- 
 tered? That, in the period which elapsed from 
 1745 to 1770, only eight Protestant Ministers had 
 been hanged ; that only forty marriages had been 
 annulled, the husbands sent to the galleys, and 
 the wives to hospitals as common prostitutes ! 
 Such was the state, such the administration, of the 
 Laws respecting Protestants, until 1787, when 
 Louis the Sixteenth softened, and undoubtedly 
 would have repealed, them, but for the subsequent 
 events which occurred to interrupt the accomplish- 
 ment of his humane intentions. One of the first 
 acts, however, of the Revolution was, to restore 
 the Protestants to a perfect equality of privileges. 
 They were declared admissible to all civil offices, 
 without distinction ; and one of their Ministers, 
 Rabaut St. Etienne, was elected President of the 
 National Assembly. The Protestants, with the 
 feelings natural to men, could not but applaud 
 and admire a work, which had raised them from 
 the depths of degradation and misery to the state 
 of free citizens, possessing equal laws and equal 
 rights. This, however, has been urged against 
 them as a matter of reproach. It has subjected 
 them to the charge of being, in a peculiar degree, 
 Revolutionists and Buonapartists. Undoubtedly 
 they were generally attached to the Revolution; un- 
 doubtedly there were some amongst them, who, as
 
 PROTESTANTS IN FRANCE. 123 
 
 Members of the Convention, voted for the death of 
 the King, though still with the recommendation of 
 the Appel au Peuple, which, if not displaying due 
 firmness, at least discovered their wish to save the 
 Monarch. In the subsequent scenes of the Revo- 
 lution, when liberty had degenerated into licen- 
 tiousness, and when tyranny and persecution had 
 usurped the places of justice and mercy, not one 
 Protestant was found to be. an actor. There was 
 not a single Protestant a Member of the Revolu- 
 tionary Tribunal for the Department of the Gard ; 
 whilst of the 130 persons who were guillotined by 
 its orders at Nismes, more than 100 were Protest- 
 ants, though the Protestants only formed about 
 one third of the population. When 1 thus speak 
 of the moderation and justice of the Protestants, 
 I do it not with any invidious feeling towards the 
 Catholics ; I only state what is usually observed 
 to be the case with respect to the moral conduct 
 of a small Sect or Society when surrounded by a 
 greater *. 
 
 " The Protestants being thus restored to the 
 
 * " A small Sect or Society amidst a greater, are commonly 
 most regular in their morals ; because they are more remarked, and 
 the faults of individuals draw dishonour on the whole. The only 
 exception to this rule is, when the superstition and prejudices of 
 the large Society are so strong as to throw an infamy on the 
 smaller Society, independent of their morals. For in that case, 
 having no character to save or gain, they become careless of their 
 behaviour, except among themselves." Hume's Essay on Na- 
 tional Characters, Note L.
 
 124 ptinsEctmoN OF THE! 
 
 rank of Citizens, all religious animosities seemed 
 to subside in the south of France. In 1802 Buo- 
 naparte, then First Consul of France, procured 
 the enactment of a Law, placing the Protestant 
 on the same footing with the Catholic Faith, in 
 point of establishment and privilege. Can it be a 
 subject of reproach to them, that they were grate- 
 ful for this favour ? It is not possible but that 
 they must have felt attachment to him for it, and 
 hence it is deemed proper to stigmatize them as 
 Buonapartists. 
 
 u Such was the state of things when, in April 
 1814, Louis XVIII. was restored. At that period 
 Buonaparte had become as unpopular at Nismes 
 as in every other part of France. The people were 
 worn down by the Taxes and the Conscription. In 
 the Department of the Gard, these were more se- 
 verely felt, and I believe, notwithstanding all 
 that has been said upon the subject, the joy ma- 
 nifested at Nismes was great and unanimous. The 
 Protestants expressed their satisfaction with as 
 much ardour and sincerity as the Catholics. Un- 
 fortunately, in the course of the ten months 
 which elapsed before the occurrence of that un- 
 happy event,, which filled Europe with alarm, a 
 considerable change of opinion had been created 
 in the Protestant mind. There had returned to- 
 Nismes, in that interval, persons who had long 
 been absent from that place, and who entertained 
 a great jealousy of the Protestants. By the in-
 
 PROTESTANTS IN FRANCE. 125 
 
 terference of these individuals, a tendency was 
 exhibited to return to the old system. The Pro- 
 testants were insulted in the streets by the popu- 
 lace ; songs were sung in ridicule of them ; 
 gibbets were drawn at their doors; the Massacre 
 of St. Bartholomew's day was adverted to^and 
 the Agitators expressed the satisfaction which they 
 should soon feel in washing their hands in Pro- 
 testant blood ; the Protestants were threatened 
 with extermination, and were told that there 
 should be but one religion. This was the situa- 
 tion of things when, in March 1815, Buonaparte 
 suddenly reappeared in the south of France. On 
 this occasion, the principal Protestants expressed 
 the same zeal and determination as the Catholic 
 subjects of Louis. A declaration was issued at 
 Nismes on the 13th of March, signed by the mu- 
 nicipal body and the most distinguished inhabit- 
 ants (amongst whom were the Ministers and se- 
 veral of the Members of the Protestant Church), 
 expressive of warm attachment to the King. Soon 
 after this, the Duke d'Angouleme appeared amongst 
 them ; but the Protestants, it was alleged, did 
 not join the Royal Army in the numbers it was 
 expected they would do. It was true, they had 
 not done so ; nor will it appear surprising, when 
 the treatment which they had experienced during 
 the short reign of Louis is recollected. 
 
 " On the 3d of April, the authority of Buona- 
 parte was proclaimed at Nismes; on the loth of
 
 126 PERSECUTION OF THE 
 
 July, that of Louis XVIII. was re-established. 
 It has been represented, that during the reign of 
 Buonaparte, from the 3d of April to the 15th of 
 July, acts of the greatest violence had been com- 
 mitted by the Protestants towards the Catholics, 
 and that every thing, which subsequently took 
 place, was to be considered as mere acts of reta- 
 liation and revenge. The fact was, however, that 
 no such acts of violence had been committed by 
 the Protestants. Of this I have been assured on 
 the best authority. During that period, the town 
 had been under the command of a Catholic, Ge- 
 neral Gilly. After the 15th of July, many of the 
 Royalists from the Duke d'Angouleme's army, 
 and from various adjoining places, flocked to 
 Nismes. The garrison, consisting of 200 men, 
 laid down their arms; but, shocking to relate, 
 were, with a few exceptions, killed in cold blood. 
 Now commenced the persecution of the Protest- 
 ants. Their houses were pulled down ; their fur- 
 niture was burnt ; the rich were laid under severe 
 contributions, and the poor exposed to the ut- 
 most cruelties. The greater part of these unfor- 
 tunate people were manufacturers. Their per- 
 secutors destroyed their looms and imple- 
 ments of industry, knowing that by such a pro- 
 ceeding they would totally deprive them of all 
 means of subsistence. Houses and manufactories 
 were totally destroyed ; vineyards laid waste, and 
 the vin.es torn up by the roots, Many females were
 
 PROTESTANTS IN FRANCE. 127 
 
 exposed in the street to every description of insult. 
 One woman, in particular, who was scourged 
 in a most brutal manner, was known to be far 
 advanced in pregnancy. The instruments which 
 were used in this torture were not of the ordinary 
 kind ; small pieces of iron and small nails were 
 fastened to the scourges by which these people 
 were torn. 
 
 " Sir, I will not detain the House by going 
 into all the particulars of these dreadful scenes. 
 Thirty women were scourged, eight or nine of 
 whom died in consequence. The statement which 
 I have before made on this subject has surprised 
 many who heard it ; but, from every thing which 
 has since come to my knowledge, I am confirmed 
 in that statement. I am certain that I shall be 
 within the real numbers when I assert, that in 
 these dreadful scenes two hundred persons have 
 been murdered, and nearly two thousand persecuted 
 in their persons and property. Two hundred and 
 fifty houses have been destroyed ; and some of 
 these outrages have been attended with circum- 
 stances so horrid, that it would appear almost in~ 
 credible that they should be suffered to pass with 
 impunity in any civilized country. An old un- 
 married man, named Lafond, who lived in retire- 
 ment, who had neither the inclination nor ability 
 to engage in political plots or discussions, 
 whose only crimes were, that he professed the He- 
 formed Religion, and was possessed of a few him-
 
 128 PERSECUTION OF THE 
 
 dred pounds, was singled out as one of the first 
 victims. Trestaillon, accompanied by other ruf- 
 fians, went to his house, forced open the street 
 door, and entered his apartment, which was on 
 an upper floor. They demanded the instant sur- 
 render of his money, and threatened him with 
 immediate death on his refusing to become a Ca- 
 tholic. He offered them all the money he had in 
 his house, if they would not murder him. To 
 this they pretended to agree ; but when they had 
 obtained their booty, regardless of his cries and 
 entreaties, they dragged him by his white locks to 
 the landing-place, and precipitated him from the 
 top of the balustrade. They thought he was 
 dead, and left him; but, returning soon after, and 
 finding him only stunned, they brought him to 
 the door, and there, amidst the acclamations of 
 the populace, literally cut him into pieces with 
 axes and broad-swords. Out of a family of the 
 name of Leblanc, consisting of eight persons, all 
 residing in the same house, seven have been mur- 
 dered by Trestaillon and his associates. Two of 
 them, who made some resistance, they brought 
 into the street, and cut to pieces on the threshold 
 of their own habitation ; the others they strangled. 
 Five persons, of the family of Chivas, were im- 
 molated. One of these had been for some time 
 confined to his room by sickness. Trestail- 
 lon went to his lodging, and finding his wife on 
 the staircase, asked for her husband. Shuddering
 
 PROTESTANTS IN FRANCE. 129 
 
 at the sight of the murderer of her brethren, she 
 hesitated what to answer. He saw her alarmed, 
 and told her to fear nothing; he intended no harm. 
 As he appeared without arms, she suffered him to 
 enter the room of her husband. He found Andre* 
 Chivas in bed, and approaching his bedside, put 
 several questions to him concerning his illness, 
 with all the appearance of one interested in his 
 welfare. Trestaillon then took him by the hand, 
 and said, * They have not treated your disease 
 properly. I am the better Doctor, and will cure 
 you immediately.' On this he pulled out a pistol 
 from his pocket, and holding it to the head of 
 Chivas, blew out his brains in the presence of his 
 wife, who has since shared the same fate. 
 
 " Having mentioned the name of this monster 
 Trestaillon, I cannot but remark to the House, 
 that he has never been brought to punishment! 
 He has been twice in custody ; once he has been 
 released. I know not whether he is still in cus- 
 tody ; but I know that he has not since been 
 brought to justice. This wretch, as it is reported, 
 frequently boasted, in public, of the horrid out- 
 rages he had committed. He was a member of 
 the Urban Guard, which is composed solely of 
 Catholics, Protestants not being permitted to be 
 enrolled with them. It is also worthy of notice, 
 that by a subsequent Decree all arms have been 
 taken away from those who do not belong to the 
 National Guard, by which the Protestants are left 
 
 VOL. II. K
 
 130 PERSECUTION OF THE 
 
 defenceless and exposed to the attacks of their 
 enemies. One man, whose house had been en- 
 tered and set on fire, was condemned to see the 
 body of his daughter, who had died a short time 
 before, dug up and thrown into the flames. Bar- 
 barous instances of this kind are too numerous to 
 be repeated in detail to the House. 
 
 " It is to be recollected, that these murders 
 and atrocities have not been perpetrated on men 
 taken in arms, they were committed in cold 
 blood. It is not only necessary to see this, 
 but it is necessary to inquire into the steps 
 taken by the French Government to suppress or 
 punish these outrages. In July 1815, Calvieres 
 was the Prefect of the Gard, and he was succeeded 
 by the Marquis d'Arbaud de Jonques, who is still 
 the Prefect of that Department. Immediately after 
 his appointment, he published a Proclamation, 
 condemning in strong terms the violent outrages 
 which had been committed. This gave offence to 
 the enraged multitude, and the Marquis was every 
 where received with marks of popular disapproba- 
 tion. The people demanded and obtained the re- 
 lease of their Barabbas, Trestaillon. The Marquis 
 went to the Duke d'Angouleme, and on his return 
 became more mild in his measures, and was of 
 course more a favourite with the people. He dis- 
 continued his severe Proclamations, and still holds 
 his situation as Prefect. I will now read to the 
 House a few Extracts from the Proclamations pub-
 
 PROTESTANTS IN PRANCE. 131 
 
 lished at Nismes, and I will ask whether they tend 
 to confirm what has been stated in the Letter of the 
 Duke of Wellington, that the French Govern- 
 ment had taken every step to put an end to those 
 outrages ? It is known, that on the 21st of Au- 
 gust the Electoral College was to meet. For a 
 long time previous to this, the outrages against 
 the Protestants had been going on ; and it will be 
 seen, from a Paper which I hold in my hand (Le 
 Journal Officiel du Gard, of the 26th of August, 
 which contains the official accounts of all that 
 had passed from the 20th), what were the steps 
 taken to secure the tranquillity of the city. On 
 the night of the 19th, several murders had been 
 committed. Now what were the precautions used 
 by the Mayor agahrst the repetition of these scenes? 
 In his Proclamation, preparing for the Feast of St. 
 Louis, he gives strict orders that the streets shall 
 be cleaned at a certain hour, and that no squibs 
 or rockets shall be thrown ! This was all the 
 Mayor deemed necessary for the preservation of 
 the peace! This was the manner in which he 
 thought fit to employ the Police ! But were there 
 no troops to aid the Mayor and Prefect in supress- 
 ing the outrages which afterwards burst forth ? 
 The House will learn, from the same official au- 
 thority to which I have already referred, that there 
 were at that moment in Nismes twenty-four troops 
 of Infantry and a regiment of Cavalry, in a very 
 
 K 2
 
 132 PERSECUTION OF THE 
 
 efficient state as to arms and discipline. Yet with 
 this force, to check disturbance, the horrid atroci- 
 ties of the 20th were committed ! 
 
 " Sir, there was another Proclamation of the 
 Prefect after these murders had been perpetrated, 
 and the House will perhaps learn with surprise the 
 manner in which they were viewed. The Prefect 
 says, in this Proclamation, that i he had, on a 
 former occasion, addressed the people ; but that, 
 he had since learned, that several outrages had 
 taken place. Last night (he adds) many murders 
 were committed.' The Proclamation then goes on 
 to state, ' that strict orders had been given to the 
 troops to be on the alert to suppress such proceed- 
 ings, taking care, however, at the same time to as- 
 cribe all that had happened to the machinations of 
 unknown Agitators, who had caused the people to 
 abuse their great love for the King.' What would 
 the House think of an English Magistrate, who, 
 in his attempt to suppress such outrages as those 
 I have described, should tell the people, who were 
 guilty of most barbarous murders, that they had 
 been deluded by their great love for the King? 
 Such Magistrates and such conduct would be de- 
 servedly treated with indignation. But the Prefect 
 told those unknown Agitators to tremble at the 
 consequences of their actions. Why did he not 
 offer rewards for the apprehension of the mur- 
 derers? No but he told them to tremble to 
 tremble at the eloquence of the Prefect ! The Pre-
 
 PROTESTANTS IN FRANCE. 133 
 
 feet also, as if to palliate the crimes which he 
 condemned, stated, that similar crimes had been 
 committed by those who favoured the Usurper 
 before the restoration of the King; and he added, 
 ' Do you also tremble, who were guilty of similar 
 excesses during the short existence of that power 
 which has been blasted by Heaven, and which is 
 detested by men.' These are the means which 
 have been resorted to in order to put a stop to 
 crimes which could only be suppressed by the most 
 active exertions, and by the most rigid justice ! 
 
 " The National Guard, who, it is to be recol- 
 lected, were all Catholics, continued at Nismes 
 until the 24th of August. During this time, the 
 murders of the Protestants continued, nor was 
 tranquillity restored until the Austrian troops en- 
 tered the place. Whilst they remained, all was 
 tranquil ; when they departed, the murders of the 
 Protestants were once more renewed. After the 
 National Guard had quitted Nismes, they were 
 removed to the mountains of the Cevennes, where, 
 under pretence of suppressing treasonable conspi- 
 racies against the Government, they exercised great 
 cruelties on the unoffending mountaineers, by which 
 several lives were lost. The Austrians at length 
 arrived, and they were all disarmed. The Aus- 
 trian troops, which entered Nismes on the 24th of 
 August, remained there until the 15th of October. 
 On the 16th, fresh murders were committed. 
 Though Trestaillon had been arrested, and sent 
 
 K 3
 
 154 PERBECUTION OF THE 
 
 out of the Department, yet there were not want- 
 ing 1 others to emulate that monster in his crimes. 
 Amongst these was one who assumed the name of 
 Quatretaillon, and who particularly signalized 
 himself by his cruel atrocities. This man had 
 been arrested by General La Garde, and sent off 
 to Marseilles ; but he had never been punished, 
 at least his punishment was never heard of; and it 
 is to be presumed, that if he had been punished, 
 it would not have been kept a secret. He had 
 been suffered to pass with impunity, though there 
 were hundreds who had been witnesses to his 
 crimes. In fact, not one of the many who were 
 implicated in these outrages has suffered ! 
 
 " Another Proclamation was issued by the Pre- 
 fect about the latter end of August, from which 
 it would seem that he rather wished to excuse 
 than to condemn what had passed. He seemed 
 rather to think, that the scenes of outrage had 
 continued too long, than to deprecate their first 
 existence ! He says, that, in the first moments 
 after the restoration, their indignation against those 
 who had been marked out by public opinion, was 
 too inconsiderate not to be excused ' Trop irre- 
 fleclii pour ridtre pas excusable! He remarks, 
 that several houses had been destroyed, but he 
 congratulates himself that the outrages had not 
 been distinguished by a spirit of robbery ' Le 
 fureur populaire ndtoit pas avili par V esprit de 
 brigandage." After this, the Prefect published an 
 
 3
 
 PROTESTANTS IN FRANCE, 135 
 
 Order, that all those whom the fear of persecution 
 had driven from Nismes, should return, and that 
 they should be protected from further molestation. 
 Many of them did so, relying on the promise held 
 out to them ; and even after this several murders 
 were committed. When, in November, the Pro- 
 testant churches were reopened, the popular in- 
 dignation was again raised ; the churches were 
 attacked, and though no lives were lost, the po- 
 pulace triumphed, and the churches were closed. 
 
 " Sir, I shall next read for the House, the 
 Proclamation by the King; and here, I cannot 
 but regret, that His Majesty did not take some 
 decisive steps at a much earlier period. But no; 
 the terrible scenes of the 20th of August had been 
 passed over unnoticed, and it was not till No- 
 vember that this Proclamation appeared." [Here 
 Sir Samuel Romilly read the Proclamation of the 
 King which had been published in November.] 
 
 " Even this," he continued, " although it con- 
 demns the outrages which had taken place, is 
 evidently tinged with a spirit not quite calculated 
 to allay the hostile feelings towards the Protest- 
 ants. It notices the attacks which had been 
 made on some of the troops under the command 
 of the Duke d'Angouleme, and observes, that the 
 punishment of such crimes should be national. 
 
 " Sir, it is with extreme difficulty that the 
 Protestants can make their grievances known. I 
 found it difficult even to procure correct informa- 
 K 4
 
 136 PERSECUTION OF THE 
 
 tion on the subject, and this difficulty had been 
 created by the French Government, who proscribe 
 the publication of every thing tending- to throw a 
 light upon the subject. A work of this kind 
 having been published at Paris, was immediately 
 suppressed by the police. No paragraphs which 
 can make those grievances known are allowed to 
 be inserted in any of the French papers. I was 
 present, and, I believe, there are some Members now 
 in this House, who were also present in the Cham- 
 ber of Deputies in Paris, during the discussion of 
 the Law for securing the liberty of the subject. 
 On that occasion, M. D'Argenson, in the course 
 of his speech, mentioned the sufferings of the 
 Protestants in the South, when several Members 
 rose, and in a tumultuous manner, called him to 
 order. And yet, not six days previously to this, 
 the streets of Nismes were streaming with the 
 blood of murdered Protestants. Not long before 
 this, the King's General had been wounded nearly 
 to death in his endeavours to protect those Pro- 
 testants from outrage. But with all these glaring 
 facts, a Member was called to order for even al- 
 luding to these circumstances in the Chamber of 
 Deputies ! I mean not to say but that many reports 
 about the Persecution of the Protestants may have 
 been exaggerated ; but in what I have stated there 
 is no exaggeration. I rather suppress than give a 
 full detail of the facts which have come to my 
 knowledge: but I may still observe, that while
 
 PROTESTANTS IN FRANCE. 137 
 
 the Catholics have every opportunity of giving 
 publicity to their statements, the suffering Pro- 
 testant is constantly deprived of the advantage. 
 An honourable Member who has just entered the 
 House, was with me in the Chamber of Deputies 
 when the circumstance to which I have alluded 
 took place " 
 
 SIR GERRARD NOEL. " I rise to call the 
 honourable Member to order. The House will 
 act very unwisely, if it allows him to proceed with 
 these details. He has been admitted into the 
 Chamber of Deputies by courtesy, as an English 
 Gentleman on his Travels, and he has no right to 
 make use of what he then heard for the purpose of 
 grounding an inquiry in the English House of 
 Commons. It will be a great breach of confidence 
 in the honourable and learned Gentleman, and is 
 derogatory to the high character and dignity of 
 this House." \_Cries of Order, Order, and calk 
 on Sir S. Romilly to proceed^] 
 
 SIR SAMUEL ROMILLY. " Sir, I can easily 
 satisfy the scruples of the honourable Baronet who 
 has called me to order, by stating, that, far from 
 being guilty of any breach of confidence, I have 
 only referred to facts, which the French Govern- 
 ment itself permitted to appear in every newspaper 
 of the following day. I repeat, that there is no 
 hesitation whatever on the part of that Govern- 
 ment in publishing every thing against the Pro- 
 testants. Every facility is allowed to the Catho-
 
 138 PERSECUTION OF THE 
 
 lies for that purpose. As a further proof of this, I 
 shall mention, that a sort of answer to the Procla- 
 mation of the King, was published in a Paris 
 paper, the Quotidienne, by the four Deputies of the 
 Gard; stating, that the disturbances to which the 
 Proclamation of the King had referred, were no- 
 thing more than the inconsiderate intemperance of 
 women and children ! Thus it is that the com- 
 plaints of the Protestants are frittered away, while 
 they have no opportunities of making any reply. 
 As I have mentioned the Law on the liberty of 
 the subject in France, I cannot but observe, that 
 it is, by no means, a dead letter ; for that nearly 
 19,000 persons had been imprisoned by its ope- 
 ration. 
 
 " I would next call the attention of the House 
 to a Proclamation which was published at Nismes, 
 shortly after the assassination of General La 
 Garde. In this, it is declared, that the laws had 
 been enforced on those who disturbed the public 
 tranquillity, and that they would continue to be 
 enforced. It then goes on to notice the attempt 
 on General La Garde, and after stating, that the 
 offender must be known to the inhabitants, it offers 
 a reward of 3000 francs for his apprehension, but 
 it neither named nor described him, though it was 
 impossible that his name should be unknown at 
 the time. It was then, as it has been since, a 
 matter of public notoriety. As for the Procla- 
 mation of the King, to which I have before al-
 
 PROTESTANTS I?4 FRANCE. 139 
 
 hided, it condemns the outrages committed, but 
 orders no active measures to prevent their recur- 
 rence. It indeed orders that all who do not be- 
 long to the National Guard shall be disarmed, but 
 that is only leaving the Protestants more exposed 
 to the mercy of their enemies, as no Protestant is 
 allowed to belong to that body. Another Procla- 
 mation was published in December, at Nismes: 
 it was from the Prefect, and announced, that on 
 the following Thursday the Protestant Churches 
 would be reopened. It was also stated with satis- 
 faction, that the Protestants would in a short 
 time give up those Churches which had originally 
 belonged to the Roman Catholics, and that they 
 (the Protestants) would have Churches built for 
 them on the outside of the city. By this very 
 Proclamation, the prejudice of the people against 
 the Catholics must have been heightened, as they 
 saw that the Protestants were not deemed worthy 
 to have Churches within the city. The Procla- 
 mation farther expressed a hope, that the city of 
 Nismes would not in future be degraded in the 
 eyes of Europe by the blind infatuation of women 
 and children, thereby implying a belief, that the 
 outrages which had been committed were only the 
 work of women and children. On the 10th of 
 January the King published another Proclama- 
 tion, in which he observed, that the former Pro- 
 clamation had met with the submission he had a 
 right to expect. But what was that submission ?
 
 140 PERSECUTION OF THE 
 
 Had any of the murderers been brought to justice? 
 Not one; and yet it was stated that the former 
 Proclamation had met submission, when one thing 
 which it commanded was the punishment of the 
 murderers. In this Proclamation the King com- 
 mands the Prefect to thank the National Guard 
 and the Inhabitants of Nismes for their adherence 
 to his former one, when it was a known fact, that 
 subsequently to that Proclamation, several Pro- 
 testants had been murdered there. 
 
 " Since December last, I am happy to believe, 
 that no crimes of a more ferocious nature have 
 been committed. Protestants, however, still conti- 
 nue to be the subjects of insult and reproach : they 
 are driven from the public walks ; they are inter- 
 rupted in their religious duties ; they have a dif- 
 ferent measure of justice dealt out to them from 
 that which is enjoyed by their Catholic fellow- 
 citizens. Many of them have been sentenced to 
 long imprisonment, sometimes even for life, under 
 pretext of having uttered seditious expressions. If 
 any person comes forward, and says, that he has 
 heard a Protestant use such and such words, the 
 Protestant is immediately thrown into Prison. 
 There was a case in which two persons were ac- 
 cused of singing an improper song, and of assault- 
 ing a waiter ; one of them was condemned to im- 
 prisonment for ten years, and the other for life ! 
 It exhibits a strange idea of justice, that all the 
 crimes and atrocities which have been committed in
 
 PROTESTANTS IN FRANCE. 141 
 
 the Gard should pass unpunished, and that offences 
 of so trivial a nature should be uniformly visited 
 with such severity! It is impossible for me to say 
 on what evidence these convictions took place ; 
 though it will not, surely, be veiy uncharitable to 
 suppose, that those who had hearts to perpetrate 
 the atrocities which I have described, are not 
 likely to be very scrupulous as to the evidence 
 they give against the Protestants. Sir, I repeat, 
 that this is a strange picture of justice. We be- 
 hold the petty offender visited with the severest 
 penalties of the Law, while the perpetrator of the 
 most atrocious crimes the murderer, not only 
 remains unpunished, but is let loose to renew his 
 practices with impunity, and to immolate new 
 victims to his ferocious bigotry or revenge. 
 
 " Sir, I am not now inclined to move an im- 
 mediate Address to the Crown, calling upon Go- 
 vernment to interfere on this subject : I am de- 
 sirous of first knowing what has taken place be- 
 tween His Majesty's Ministers and the Government 
 of France respecting the excesses committed 
 against the Protestants. I shall, therefore, move 
 that an Address be presented to His Royal High- 
 ness the Prince Regent, praying that directions 
 be given to His Majesty's Ministers to lay before 
 this House Copies or Extracts of all communica- 
 tions which have passed between His Majesty's 
 Government and the Government of France rela- 
 tive to the Protestants in the South of France. I
 
 142 PERSECUTION OF THE 
 
 make this motion in no spirit of hostility to His 
 Majesty's Ministers. I am glad to afford an 
 opportunity to the noble Secretary of State to give 
 to the House more detailed information and from 
 more authentic sources than I can be supposed to 
 possess. I have purposely avoided entering into 
 details on this subject : I could give a long list of 
 the names of Protestants murdered at Nismes, to 
 not one of whom could it be imputed, that he had 
 taken part with Buonaparte. It is incumbent on 
 those Ministers, who, with the Duke of Welling- 
 ton, has. said that the French Government has 
 taken all the measures in its power to prevent these 
 atrocities, and to extend protection to all classes 
 of its subjects, to show that this has been the 
 
 case. 
 
 \ 
 
 " Sir, if precedents are necessary now to jus- 
 tify the line of conduct which I wish the House 
 to adopt, I need bring forward no other than that 
 recent one which has reflected such honour on 
 this country, I mean that unanimous expression 
 of English feeling with respect to our fellow-crea- 
 tures on the coast Africa; for I cannot think that 
 they had stronger claims on us than our fellow- 
 creatures in the south of France. The interference 
 on that recent occasion would even serve to justify 
 our conduct, if France were indifferent to us. 
 But such is not the case, we have taken a great 
 part in the restoration of the Bourbons. If the 
 Protestants are disarmed, we have assisted in dis-
 
 PROTESTANTS IN FRANCE. 143 
 
 arming them. At the moment when these bloody 
 scenes were acting in Languedoc, three Protestant 
 armies might be said to occupy France. His 
 Most Christian Majesty could not then look from 
 the windows of his palace without seeing guns 
 pointed against it, and matches ready to fire them, 
 off if necessary. This was the state of France at 
 the time when all these bloody transactions were 
 taking place. Our responsibility calls upon us, 
 if we did not at the moment interpose our good 
 offices, to do so now ; for what is the situation in 
 which they stand at this moment? The House 
 well knows, that many parts of France are still in 
 a state of trouble and disorder. Who can say, if 
 the fears of those who call themselves the Loyalists, 
 should be excited, what may be the situation of 
 the Protestant inhabitants of Nismes, who are 
 doomed to be now jostled as they walk along the 
 streets by the murderers of their wives, their 
 children, or their parents ; threatening them with 
 their looks, and exulting in their former successful 
 villany ? And what sort of blame will fall on us, 
 having this responsibility, if we shall not ask 
 protection for these unfortunate people ? Sir, I 
 move that an humble Address be presented to His 
 Royal Highness the Prince Regent, that he would 
 be graciously pleased to give directions, that there 
 be laid before this House, Copies or Extracts of 
 all communications which have passed between His 
 Majesty's Government and the Government of
 
 144 PERSECUTION OF THE 
 
 France, relative to the Protestants in the southern 
 departments of that kingdom." 
 
 The Motion was supported by Mr. Brougham 
 and Mr. William Smith, and opposed by Lord 
 Castlereagh and Lord Binning, who complained of 
 the picture which had been drawn by Sir Samuel 
 Romilly as too highly coloured, and as likely 
 to injure the cause he was anxious to support. 
 The dissensions between the Catholics and Pro- 
 testants were mutual. They were partly of a 
 religious, and partly of a political nature. The 
 Catholics were the Royalists, and the Protestants 
 the Buonapartists. The French Government had 
 done every thing in its power to put a stop to the 
 evils complained of, which, after all, were con- 
 fined to a small part of France. Nothing was 
 more to be deprecated than the interference of one 
 government with the internal concerns of another. 
 How would this country endure the interference 
 of foreign powers with its own domestic policy? 
 The House was bound to resist the Motion of the 
 honourable and learned Gentleman, which, it was 
 contended, would excite religious animosities, not 
 only in France, but even in this country. 
 
 Sir Samuel Romilly began his reply by saying, 
 that a most unwarrantable charge had been pre- 
 ferred against him by the noble Secretary of State. 
 He was not conscious of having ever done or said 
 any thing to give the noble Lord personal offence^ 
 or to provoke such aspersions on his motives and
 
 PROTESTANTS IN FRANCE. 145 
 
 actions, as, to his knowledge, had never been 
 before applied to any individual in that House. 
 Why then should the noble Lord feel disposed to 
 offer him such deli berate, such designed injus- 
 tice? (A cry of Order!) Sir Samuel Romilly 
 said that he was not aware of any departure from 
 order, nor had he any inclination to offend the 
 noble Lord ; but he felt that he had a right to 
 complain, when accused of exciting religious ani- 
 mosities, not only in France, but even in this 
 Country. Such an imputation, he would venture 
 to say, was wholly undeserved. There was not a 
 man who could deprecate more strongly than he 
 would a consequence so baneful. 
 
 " But I have been also accused" (he conti- 
 nued) " of exaggeration and high colouring, and 
 of desiring this Country to interfere in a hos- 
 tile manner with the proceedings ~ of the French 
 Government. The fallacy of the latter charge is 
 obvious from the words of my Motion, which does 
 not call for interference, but only for an account 
 of any interference which may have already taken 
 place. It is confessed, on the other side, that 
 our Government has interfered, and my Motion 
 only requires some account of the nature of that 
 interference. Sir, I trust that it is equally repug- 
 nant to my principles and my inclination to advise 
 any plan of interference inconsistent with the 
 amity now subsisting between this Countiy and 
 France. I neither propose, nor wish, that our 
 VOL. 11. . L
 
 146 PERSECUTION OF THE 
 
 Government should interpose by any other means 
 than those of good offices and friendly recom- 
 mendations; and, therefore, the observations which 
 have been made by the noble Lords (Binning and 
 Castlereagh) as to the use of force, are totally inap- 
 plicable. But by whom are these scruples and ap- 
 prehensions so anxiously entertained r By whom is 
 the danger of interference now so loudly depre- 
 cated ? By the very persons who have pushed it 
 farther in practice than was ever done by the 
 boldest of their predecessors ; by the very men, 
 who, after having involved England in a war for 
 the avowed purpose of deposing the adopted ruler 
 of the French people, now guarantee the throne to 
 his successor in opposition to the national voice,with 
 an army of one hundred and fifty thousand men ! 
 
 " Sir, with respect to the charge of exaggera- 
 tion, which has also been advanced against me 
 by the noble Lord, I feel it to be equally un- 
 founded. No statement made by me has been in 
 any degree controverted. On the contrary, I 
 might even cite the statements of the noble Se- 
 cretary himself in confirmation of my own. The 
 letter which he has read to the House supports 
 my relation of the case. The printed Report also, 
 which is now before him, presents details far more 
 shocking than any thing which I have described. 
 How then can I be accused of exaggeration or 
 high colouring ? I stated that a Protestant had 
 been shot in his bed. Is not this an undoubted 
 fact ? Or was there any high colouring in my
 
 m routes. 147 
 
 statement of it ? Could I state it more mildly 
 than in the style of (simple narrative ?** 
 
 Sir Samuel Romilly then proceeded to show 
 the injustice of which Lord Castlereagh had been 
 guilty towards the Protestants by identifying them 
 with the Bnonapartists. If the persecution then 
 proceeding in France, was, as it had been assert- 
 ed, wholly of a political nature, it was strange, 
 that it should have been confined to Protestants, 
 and that it had not also extended to the Catholic 
 supporters of Napoleon ! The Letter which had 
 been written by the Duke of Wellington, he 
 considered as most unjustifiable, and as wholly 
 unwarranted by the real facts of the case. The 
 French Government had done little or nothing 
 to suppress the outrages which had been perpe- 
 trated in the department of Garde, except in mere 
 words. Notwithstanding all the crimes notwith- 
 standing the murders which were known to have 
 ?>een committed there, not a single individual had 
 been brought to punishment. Sir Samuel Ro- 
 milly concluded by saying, that, whatever the 
 event of his Motion might be in that House, he 
 was satisfied that the discussion would be produc- 
 tive of advantage. It must always do good to 
 disclose truth, and bring acts of oppression to light. 
 
 The question was then put and negatived*. 
 
 * It may not, perhaps, be uninteresting to see bow Cromwell 
 conducted himself under similar circumstances to those which oc- 
 curred in the South of France. In 1 655, the Duke of Savoy had 
 
 L2
 
 148 GAME LAWS. r -^^ 
 
 GAME LAWS. STAT. 56 GEO. III. C. 130. 
 
 February IZth, 1817. 
 
 SIR Samuel Romilly. " I rise, in pursuance of 
 the notice which I have given, to move for the 
 repeal of an Act which has been only seven 
 months -in existence. It is an Act, which was 
 hurried through this House, amidst a multipli- 
 city of other public business, having been read 
 a third time at one o'clock in the morning; and 
 which, after passing the House of Lords with 
 equal precipitancy, received the Royal assent 
 at the very close of the last Session. Although 
 
 published an edict, commanding his reformed subjects in the 
 rallies of Piedmont to embrace Popery, or renounce their coun- 
 try. Those who neglected to obey this edict, were either 
 cruelly massacred or compelled to seek refuge in the mountains. 
 No sooner did Cromwell hear of this persecution, than he pro- 
 moted a subscription for the immediate relief of the surviving 
 sufferers, remonstrated with their oppressor, and by his re- 
 peated applications interested every Christian state in their fa- 
 vour. The consequence of this generous interposition was the 
 revocation of the barbarous edict, and the reinstatement of the 
 remaining Piedmontois in their cottages, and the peaceable 
 exercise of their religion. The letters written on this occasion 
 in Cromwell's name, are to be found in the prose works of 
 Milton j and for the English spirit which they breathe, might be 
 read, without disservice, by many of our modern statesmen. 
 The massacre in Piedmont is also the subject of Milton's 
 Eighteenth Sonnet, " Avenge, O Lord, thy slaughtered saints," 
 Ice.
 
 CAME LAWS. 149 
 
 relating to a subject which requires no incon- 
 siderable degree of care and deliberation, its 
 progress through Parliament was altogether un- 
 noticed. No discussion took place upon its 
 merits ; nay, to a great majority of the Members 
 of this House, I believe, its very existence was 
 unknown. Sir, the Act to which I refer, is the 
 56th Geo. III. c. 130, which was passed by the 
 Legislature for the protection of Game, and which 
 for its extreme rigour is, I believe, without ex- 
 ample in the laws of any country. It puts not 
 only the actual, but even the meditated, destruc- 
 tion of Game upon a footing with Felony. It 
 enacts, that, any person found in any forest, 
 chase, wood, plantation, or other open or en- 
 closed ground in the night-time, not merely with 
 a gun, but with a net, or any other instrument 
 for taking or killing Game, shall be liable to the 
 penalty of transportation for seven years, at the 
 discretion of the Magistrates assembled at the 
 Quarter Sessions. 
 
 " The Game Laws of this country have been 
 long a subject of complaint. Their evil influence 
 is confined to no rank or condition of life, but 
 operates with equal mischief, on the lowest and 
 the highest *. At the same time, I am by no 
 
 * Sir Samuel Romilly, on a subsequent occasion, repeated the 
 same observation, which he illustrated, by alluding to the vin- 
 dictive and selfish feelings, which are so frequently generated on 
 
 L3
 
 150 GAME LAWS. 
 
 means insensible to the sad effects of poaching, 
 to the idle and profligate habits which it seldom 
 fails to produce. The frequent acts of rapine and 
 atrocity, which have been committed, of late 
 years, by persons pursuing this lawless occupa- 
 tion, are notorious ; but is it by means like these 
 by indiscriminate and unmeasured severity, that 
 the evil will- be repressed ? No ; such punish- 
 ments tend only to defeat the object for which 
 they are enacted, by rendering offenders more 
 desperate, and by turning public opinion rather 
 against the law than against the offence. 
 
 " But the present Act is not less striking 
 for its inconsistency than for its rigour. So dif- 
 ferent is the object professed in its preamble from 
 that which seems to be aimed at in its subsequent 
 enactments, that it is difficult to suppose, that 
 they were intended to form parts of the same Bill. 
 The object of its authors, as to be collected from 
 the preamble, was to suppress illegal combina- 
 tions of armed persons, going out by night to 
 commit acts of violence ; but the effect of the 
 measure is to transport any individual who may 
 be found destroying, or attempting to destroy, a 
 
 this subject, and which lead Gentlemen to treat the lives of 
 their fellow-creatures as of trifling estimation, in comparison 
 with the preservation of a hare or a partridge. The practice of 
 placing spring guns and other engines of death or bodily harm 
 in grounds and preserves, he particularly reprobated as equally 
 cruel and illegal.
 
 GAME LAWS. 511 
 
 hare or partridge. The preamble of the Act re- 
 cites, that idle and disorderly persons are in the 
 habit of going out to poach at night with arms, 
 and are thus trained up to felony and even to 
 murder; but its provisions are made to extend 
 equally to those who go out unarmed, and who 
 are merely found abroad at night with nets, wires, 
 or any instruments for the destruction of Game. 
 That this latter offence should be, if possible, re- 
 pressed, no one can for a moment doubt, that it 
 even calls for severe punishment, but not for the 
 extraordinary penalty prescribed by this Statute, 
 not for transportation. Such a penalty, such 
 unjustifiable and indiscriminate severity, cannot 
 but defeat the very object of its enactment. It 
 tends only, I repeat, to make the offender more 
 desperate, and more ferocious. He will perceive 
 no distinctions or degrees of guilt, where the law 
 has recognised no distinctions or degrees of 
 punishment ; he will proceed on his nightly depre- 
 dations, armed and prepared, at all hazards, to 
 resist apprehension. 
 
 " It is far from being my wish unnecessarily 
 to represent the Game Laws in an odious point of 
 view ; but I must remind the House, that there is 
 an obvious distinction between them and other 
 penal laws. The latter are equally made for the 
 protection of the rich and the poor. Not so the 
 former: they have been most exclusively framed 
 for the pleasures of the rich. This consideration 
 
 L4
 
 152 GAMK LAWS. 
 
 alone ought to make the House extremely cau- 
 tious ; this alone should operate as a reason to 
 deter us from investing the Game Laws with any 
 unnecessary and extraordinary severity. 
 
 " Having noticed the penalties contained in 
 this Act, let us next see the cases to which they 
 are applicable. Let us see how it has defined 
 the period of night, at which it is made thus 
 penal to be abroad in pursuit of Game. Now, 
 the night of these wise legislators extends, from 
 eight in the evening, to seven o'clock in the morn- 
 ing, from the first of October to the first of 
 March. I have heard much of the omnipotence 
 of Parliament, but I never understood that it 
 could change day into night. Yet every Gentle- 
 man must be aware, that the sun is up at a quar- 
 ter past six in the month of October, and con- 
 sequently three quarters of an hour earlier than 
 these legislators will allow it to be day! This 
 definition subjects almost every qualified man in 
 the country to the operation of the Act. The 
 sportsman (who is generally an early riser), if 
 found abroad in search of Game before seven 
 o'clock, will become liable to transportation. 
 
 t But to whom is the execution of the law, 
 on this occasion, to whom is this large and 
 discretionary power of infliction, committed ? 
 To the county Magistrates, to a body of men, 
 highly respectable, but who, from their peculiar 
 habits, and personal feelings on every thing re-
 
 GAME LAWS. 153 
 
 lating to Game, are, perhaps, less fitted than any 
 other to be impartial and unprejudiced judges in 
 cases of this description. The discretion is even 
 too large to be intrusted to the Judges of the 
 land. It is, in the clearest sense, improper at any 
 time to give a Judge too much power, and I 
 cannot certainly help lamenting that any penal 
 laws should exist, which are not intended to be 
 put into execution. In the discussions on this 
 measure, however, I trust that I shall not (indeed, 
 I know not how I can) be charged with any de- 
 sire to innovate on the penal code, or to contemn 
 the wisdom of our ancestors. There is, for once 
 at least, no room for those bugbears, which 
 have been so anxiously conjured up on every 
 former occasion, when I proposed any alteration 
 in the law. On the contrary, this Act ought, in 
 common consistency, to be viewed by my usual 
 opponents as an innovation, as the fruit, not of 
 ancient wisdom, but of wisdom only seven months 
 old. That such an innovation should have passed 
 this House is, indeed, to be accounted for, not 
 only by the late period of the Session, but by the 
 late hour at night, and the fatiguing multiplicity 
 of business, with which the attention of the few 
 remaining Members had been exhausted, when 
 the measure was introduced. The quiet manner 
 in which it passed the House of Lords is more 
 astonishing, especially when we recollect the 
 scrupulous anxiety v always manifested by that
 
 154 GAME LAWS. 
 
 body to prevent any innovation on the Penal Laws. 
 I remember an Act of Elizabeth, dooming to the 
 gallows all soldiers and sailors found wandering 
 without a testimonial or pass from a Justice of the 
 Peace *. It had attracted the notice of Mr. Jus- 
 tice Blackstone, who justly stigmatized it as a 
 disgrace to the Statute Book. Viewing it in the 
 same light, I introduced into Parliament a Bill 
 for its repeal, and was for once successful. It 
 passed both Houses, though not without expe- 
 riencing one alteration in the House of Lords; 
 The preamble, as it passed the Commons, had 
 stated it to be * highly expedient to repeal ' the 
 Act, &c. &c. The Lords expunged the word 
 ' highly,' as, however expedient they might deem 
 it to repeal an Act for hanging soldiers and 
 sailors, they could tolerate no expression tending, 
 in the remotest degree, to impugn the wisdom of 
 its venerable authors. I must lament that they 
 did not exercise the same extraordinary jealousy in 
 the present case, than which a more flagrant in- 
 novation on English Law had been scarcely ever 
 submitted to the consideration of Parliament." 
 
 Sir Samuel Rornilly concluded, by moving for 
 leave to bring in a Bill, to repeal the law above 
 mentioned, which was granted. 
 
 * 3pth Eliz. c. 17.
 
 HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENSION BILL. 155 
 
 HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENSION BILL. 
 
 February 26th, 1817. 
 
 LORD Castlereagh moved the Order of the Day 
 for the first reading of the Habeas Corpus Sus- 
 pension Bill. The Motion was opposed by Mr. 
 Bennett, Mr. J. H. Smyth, Lord Althorpe, &c. 
 and supported by Mr. F. Lewis, the Lord Advo- 
 cate of Scotland, Mr. C. Wynn, &c. 
 
 Sir Samuel Romilly. " Sir, however unwill- 
 ing to occupy the attention of the House, I cannot 
 consent to give a silent vote on the most import- 
 ant question which has been ever discussed since 
 I had a seat in Parliament. In whatever view we 
 may contemplate the proposed measure, whether 
 in relation to its immediate effects on the liberties 
 of the people, or as a precedent for the conduct 
 of future Ministers and future Parliaments, it is a 
 subject which deserves the maturest deliberation. 
 On the inestimable value of that part of the con- 
 stitution which it tends to annul, there can be but 
 one sentiment. It will be for the House to in- 
 quire, whether there exists any thing in the pre- 
 sent state of the country, whether the causes of 
 alarm are so serious, and so imminent, as to de- 
 mand nothing less than this fatal sacrifice. That 
 evils exist, that poverty and discontent have 
 
 4
 
 156 HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENSION BILL. 
 
 been followed by partial outrages and disorder, 
 few will be disposed to deny. But does the Sta- 
 tute Book afford no remedy, or, supposing some 
 extraordinary measure to be necessary, is the re- 
 medy now proposed, adapted to the nature of the 
 disease ? 
 
 " Sir, to justify the present application, it is 
 incumbent on those who make it, to show that the 
 ordinary means have been duly tried, and that 
 those means have failed of success. The noble 
 Lord, indeed, has spoken of the extraordinary 
 vigilance of Government, but where is the evi- 
 dence of it ? In what does this boasted vigilance 
 consist, to what does it amount ? It amounts, 
 in truth, to nothing! The noble Lord's own 
 statement sufficiently disproves the claim, which 
 has been made on the part of himself and col- 
 leagues on this occasion. He has told us that 
 traitorous designs had been long proceeding, 
 that for a considerable time before the aid of Par- 
 liament was required, the most insidious attempts 
 had been made upon the loyalty, the morals, and 
 the religion of the people, by the industrious circu- 
 lation of seditious and blasphemous publications, 
 and yet (though Ministers so boldly assert these 
 facts, though they even profess to have been 
 long apprized of their existence), up to the pre- 
 sent moment not a single prosecution has been 
 instituted against their authors ! How then can 
 it be said, in the language of the Report, that ( the
 
 HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENSION BILL. 157 
 
 utmost vigilance of Government, under the exist- 
 ing- laws, has been found inadequate to the dan- 
 ger ?' Far be it from me to condemn lenity on 
 the part of those invested with power; far be it 
 from me to urge extreme rigour in the execution of 
 laws ; though I do contend that the existing laws 
 should at least have been tried, before the Legis- 
 lature was called upon to enact new. 
 
 " But the excuse of the Attorney General for 
 this procrastination is the most extraordinary. 
 He says, that the libels which have been laid 
 before him were so numerous, that he really could 
 not see where the prosecutions were to end! 
 Where they were to end, Sir, I do not pretend to 
 decide ; though it could not surely have been so 
 difficult to determine, where they ought to have 
 begun. The libels may have been numerous, 
 though certainly nothing was publicly known of 
 them until very lately. The more numerous, 
 however, the more urgent the necessity of pro- 
 ceeding against some of their authors, as a terror 
 and an example to the rest. Sir, the present case 
 has been assimilated to that of 1794. But what 
 were the circumstances attending the suspension 
 of the Habeas Corpus Act at that time? What 
 was the conduct of Government on that occasion ? 
 The Ministers of that day, whatever else may be 
 imputed to them, were at least guiltless of bear- 
 ing the sword in vain. They resorted not to 
 Parliament for new powers until they had en-
 
 158 HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENSION BILL. 
 
 forced the old. Prosecutions for sedition had 
 been instituted at the different Assizes and Quar- 
 ter Sessions in every corner of the kingdom. Not 
 that I would be supposed to hold up this conduct 
 on the part of Government to the imitation of 
 their successors. The error was then on the side 
 of rigour. The laws were too severely enforced. 
 Though examples might in some cases have been 
 necessary, the indiscriminate and sweeping punish- 
 ments awarded against every petty offender can be 
 vindicated on no principles of justice or sound po- 
 licy. I am surprised to observe the smile of con- 
 tempt on the face of the Hon. and learned Gentle- 
 man (the Attorney General), intended as it is to 
 deride the censure of conduct so opposite to that 
 which he has thought fit to pursue. He is, how- 
 ever, mistaken, if he imagines that I have con- 
 trasted the different proceedings of His Majesty's 
 Law Officers at the two periods, for the purpose of 
 passing judgment either on the one or the other. 
 My object has been rather to show the extreme 
 variance between them, and that Ministers (even 
 if we admit their representations, as to the dis- 
 ordered and alarming state of the country, to be 
 substantially correct) are not justified by the pre- 
 cedent to which they so triumphantly appeal, in 
 imposing new restraints upon the liberty of the 
 subject, until they have proved the inefficacy of 
 those already in existence. 
 
 " Sir, the learned Lord Advocate of Scotland,
 
 HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENSION BILL. 159 
 
 to the surprise and dismay of his surrounding 
 friends, has produced an oath, said to have been 
 taken by some deluded persons at Glasgow. But 
 were not Ministers long ago acquainted with the 
 circumstance ? Or did they imagine that the Le- 
 gislature had overlooked the offence ? Is it pos- 
 sible that they were ignorant of the penalty at- 
 tached to it? That it is felony without the benefit 
 of clergy, unless the individual, taking the oath, 
 within fourteen days afterwards, abandons his as- 
 sociates and betrays their purposes ? What more 
 does the learned Lord require than the severest 
 punishment which is known to the laws of this 
 kingdom? 
 
 " As to the question, whether or not the pro- 
 posed remedy is adapted to the nature of the evil, 
 there is no one who pretends that it is so, except 
 the honourable Member who spoke last (Mr. C. 
 Wynn). He has, Indeed, contended, that as suf- 
 ficient evidence cannot be procured to convict, it 
 is, therefore, proper to give Ministers unlimited 
 power to imprison ! As the delinquent cannot be 
 brought to trial, he is to be punished without it ! 
 On the contrary, Sir, I contend, that this mea- 
 sure is in no way calculated to meet the evil. 
 Who are the fomenters of these troubles ? Who 
 are the redoubted chiefs in these scenes of mis- 
 chief, whose arrest is at once to check the pro- 
 gress of disaffection and defeat the operations of 
 the minor agents ? Are they persons of leading 
 influence or talent ? No ; they are all alike in-
 
 160 HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENSION BILL. 
 
 significant, objects rather of pity and contempt, 
 than of public jealousy and alarm. According to 
 the account of Ministers, the real evil exists in the 
 extent to which the infection has spread and is 
 spreading, in the intricate ramifications through 
 which the poison is conveyed to the public mind. 
 Will the imprisonment therefore of ten or twenty 
 poor wretches prevent its diffusion? If, indeed, 
 two or three were publicly tried, regularly con- 
 victed, and exemplarily punished, something pro- 
 bably might be gained ; others might be deterred, 
 for the fact would be known ; but the mere un- 
 heard-of confinement of a few mechanics will 
 effect nothing in a case of active mischief like 
 that which has been described. 
 
 " Sir, on every former occasion when this Act 
 has been suspended, the state of things was widely 
 different from the present. There existed at least 
 enough to warrant the apprehensions, even in the 
 opinions of those who thought it their duty to 
 oppose the measures of Ministers. The country 
 was in a state of actual war, or actual rebellion, 
 or both. Such was the case in 1794, in 1798, 
 and in 1801. External danger was aggravated 
 by internal co-operation. The fears of an in- 
 vasion from France were heightened by the rage 
 of disaffection in England and of open rebellion in 
 Ireland. Whatever difference of opinion might 
 prevail in Parliament, as to the remedy, no one 
 denied either the existence or the extent of the
 
 HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENSION BILL. 161 
 
 evil. No petitions were then presented, humbly 
 praying that Parliament would reform itself. The 
 avowed object of the disaffected was not to re- 
 form, but to supersede Parliament, and to sub- 
 stitute in its stead a National Assembly like that 
 of France, which boasted of its active corre- 
 spondence with this country. Such, Sir, was the 
 state of the country at the periods to which I have 
 been alluding, periods in which some Gentlemen 
 have affected to discern so striking a similitude to 
 the present. 
 
 " Sir, much as I must reprobate the adoption 
 of such a measure, at the present moment, I am 
 not one of those who think that the Habeas 
 Corpus Act ought never to be suspended. Under 
 certain circumstances it may be just and neces- 
 sary. Such were the circumstances which more 
 than once occurred within the first sixty years 
 after the Revolution, when there was a Pretender 
 to the Throne ; when persons of the highest rank 
 and authority were in active league and corre- 
 spondence with the enemy, and were endeavour- 
 ing to expose their country to the united horrors 
 of foreign invasion and civil war. The arrest of 
 the leaders was, in such cases, necessary, as it 
 paralysed the traitorous designs of all their de- 
 pendents. But is there any such necessity at the 
 present moment ? Where can Ministers find one 
 man of influence or consequence among the dis- 
 affected of our day e Where can they find even a 
 
 VOL. II. M
 
 162 HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENSION BILL. 
 
 man of the middle rank of life among the igno- 
 rant and deluded wretches against whom Mi- 
 nisters are about to launch their vengeance? How 
 then can this Suspension be useful; unless, in- 
 deed, our Government shall follow the example 
 of one which it has recently supported against the 
 avowed wishes of the people, where not merely 
 obnoxious individuals, but the inhabitants of 
 whole villages and towns, have been thrown into 
 dungeons ? Is not this, I confidently demand, a 
 powerful reason for refusing what is now required? 
 Will the House intrust Ministers with a power by 
 which persons of low rank and obscure occupa- 
 tions will be placed, in shoals, at the mercy of 
 every truckling Informer? Sir, the noble Lord 
 (Castlereagh) on a former evening thought proper 
 to advert to the names of individuals in higher sta- 
 tions, who have been placed by these infatuated 
 Reformers upon what they term the Committee of 
 Safety or Conservative Body. But because mis- 
 guided and illiterate men have had the audacity, 
 without the slightest authority, to place upon this 
 list persons of undoubted loyalty and elevated 
 rank, does it afford such a presumption of guilt 
 as to justify the bold declaration of the noble 
 Lord, that in the eyes of God and mart they are 
 answerable for all the consequences of rebellion ? 
 Undoubtedly the names of those most respect- 
 able persons are found there on account of the
 
 HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENSION BILL. 163 
 
 general sentiments they are known to entertain on 
 public affairs. But is this an argument (as it has 
 been advanced by the noble Lord and the Right 
 Hon. Gentleman who spoke after him), is this an 
 argument against the support of popular doc- 
 trines ? Is every one who presumes to argue in 
 favour of Parliamentary Reform, the liberty of 
 the Press, or any other topic displeasing to those 
 in power, to be included in the dreadful denun- 
 ciation of the noble Lord ? Sir, I am not fond at 
 any time of making personal allusions, and I am 
 the more unwilling to make them now on account 
 of the unusual soreness which has been shown by 
 the noble Lord on certain topics this night ; but I 
 cannot help observing, that there was a period, 
 even in his life, when he might have had the mis- 
 fortune to fall under his own denunciation, and 
 to be included in the list of a Committee of 
 Safety ! The liberality of the noble Lord's former 
 opinions, and the pledges of championship in the 
 cause of Parliamentary Reform, given by him at 
 an early period of his political life, before he en- 
 tered into office, or was transplanted into any 
 of the hotbeds or nurseries for young Statesmen*, 
 might have rendered even him responsible in the 
 
 * See Mr. Canning's Speech in the Debate on Sir M. W. 
 Ridley's Motion, for reducing the number of the Lords of the 
 Admiralty. 
 
 M 2
 
 164 HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENSION BILL. 
 
 eyes of God and man for the consequences of dis- 
 affection and rebellion * ! 
 
 " Sir, reverting once more to the question 
 more immediately before us, I implore the House 
 not to withdraw from the lower classes a protec- 
 tion to which they are as much entitled as the 
 most exalted individuals in the State. It is impos- 
 sible to calculate on the abuses to which a mea- 
 sure like this may be subject ; it is impossible to 
 foresee the misery and ruin which it may be the 
 means of occasioning, even to the most innocent 
 individuals ; and yet, AT THE EXPIRATION OP 
 THE PROPOSED ACT, MINISTERS WILL ONLY HAVE 
 TO COME DOWN TO THE HOUSE WITH A BlLL OP 
 INDEMNITY, AND THEIR RESPONSIBILITY WILL BE AT 
 AN END! Sir, our ancestors never consented to 
 the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act but in 
 cases of extreme danger. The proposal there- 
 fore of such a measure now is the more alarming 
 on account of the precedent which it will es- 
 tablish. It is now for the jirst time laid down, 
 that under any circumstances of alarm the Rights 
 
 * At the commencement of the election for the county of 
 Down, in June 1700, Lord Castlereagh (then the Hon. Robert 
 Stewart) subscribed a TEST, pledging himself, amongst other 
 things, to be governed by the instructions of his Constituents, 
 and to promote, with all his abilities and influence, both in and 
 out of Parliament, the success of a Bill for amending the repre- 
 sentation of the people.
 
 HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENSION BILL. 165 
 
 of Englishmen are to be dispensed with ! In the 
 years 1767 and 1768, when, according to the 
 Letters of Dr. Franklin, great distress, unusual 
 scarcity, and alafmin riots prevailed, no person 
 ever dreamt of suspending the Habeas Corpus 
 Act. Now, however, in time of profound peace, ' 
 it is contended, that the race of Englishmen have 
 become so degenerate as to be incapable of their 
 own protection ; now, their weakness and pusilla- 
 nimity are such, that they are willing to make 
 a voluntary sacrifice of their liberties, and to sur- 
 render their dearest rights into the hands of Mi- 
 nisters! True it is, that dangers threaten the 
 country; but, is THERE NO DANGER IN EMPOWER- 
 ING A FEW INDIVIDUALS TO IMPRISON ALL THE 
 REST OF THEIR FELLOW-CITIZENS, AND THAT TOO, 
 WITHOUT THE SLIGHTEST RESPONSIBILITY? Is 
 
 there no danger in this Suspension at a period 
 like the present, when the standing army is so 
 overgrown, and when the Government already 
 possesses a more extended and uncontrolled in- 
 fluence than has been ever before enjoyed in any 
 former age ? Js there no danger even to general 
 liberty, when foreign States, already sufficiently 
 disposed to check its growth, shall see this once 
 free country placed under the absolute dominion 
 of its Ministers, on account of the absurd schemes 
 of a few miserable Spenceans? Is there no danger 
 in public opinion, and that even to Ministers 
 themselves? Are they well assured that, this
 
 166 HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENSION BILL. 
 
 measure will have, in truth, the effect of strength- 
 ening their weak hands ? Will not the people see 
 through the artifice of those, who, under the pre- 
 tence of public security, are only endeavouring 
 to aggrandize or to secure themselves? Sir, in 
 every point of view I consider this measure ob- 
 jectionable. The dangers may be great, but the 
 existing laws have not yet been tried; and if 
 tried, they will be found sufficient for every pur- 
 pose of national protection." 
 The House divided: 
 
 Ayes ... - 273 
 
 Noes - - - - 98 
 
 Majority - - - 175 
 The Bill was then read for the first time *. 
 
 * In a subsequent stage of the Bill, on the Motion of 
 Sir Samuel Romilly an amendment was made, limiting its opera- 
 tion, in Scotland as well as in England, to persons committed to 
 prison for Treason or suspicion of Treason upon a warrant 
 signed ly six Privy Counsellors, or one of the principal Secretaries 
 of Stale. As the Bill stood originally, it extended to all persons 
 in the former country committed ly any subordinate Magistrate^
 
 MR. HORNKR. 167 
 
 MR. HORNER. 
 
 March 3rd, 1817. 
 
 ON a Motion made by Lord Morpeth, that " the 
 Speaker do issue his writ, for the election of a 
 Member to serve in Parliament for the Borough of 
 St. Mawes, in the room of the late Francis 
 Homer, Esq.," Sir Samuel Romilly rose and 
 spoke to the following effect. " Sir, the long and 
 most intimate friendship which I have enjoyed 
 with the honourable Member whose loss the 
 House has to deplore, will, I hope, entitle me to 
 the melancholy satisfaction of saying a few words 
 on this distressing occasion. It is only, however, 
 as a public man that I shall now speak of him. 
 Though no man better knew, or more highly 
 estimated, the private virtues of Mr. Horner than 
 I did, I am not sure that I should be able to 
 utter all I feel on that subject. 
 
 " Sir, of all the estimable qualities which 
 distinguished his character, I consider as the 
 most valuable, that INDEPENDENCE of mind, which 
 in him was so remarkable. It was from this feel- 
 ing, and from a just sense of its importance, that, 
 at the same time that he was storing his mind 
 with the most various knowledge on all subjects 
 connected with our internal economy and foreign 
 
 M4
 
 168 MR. HORNER. 
 
 politics, and that he was taking a conspicuous 
 and most successful part in all the great ques- 
 tions, on which it was his duty, as a Legislator, 
 to form or to express an opinion, he laboriously 
 devoted himself to all the painful duties of his 
 profession. Though his success at the Bar was not 
 at all adequate to his merits, he yet steadily per- 
 severed in his labours, and seemed to consider it 
 as essential to his independence, that he should 
 look forward to his profession alone, for the ho- 
 nours and emoluments to which his extraordinary 
 talents gave him so just a claim. 
 
 " In the course of the last twelve years the 
 nation has lost many of its brightest ornaments, 
 many of its greatest men. But those emi- 
 nent men, to whom I allude, had arrived at 
 the summit of their fame, at the full maturity 
 of their extensive powers and endowments. We 
 knew, when they were taken from us, the whole 
 extent of the loss we had sustained. Not so with 
 our present loss. No one can recollect how, in 
 every year since my lamented Friend first took a 
 part in the debates of this House, his talents have 
 been improving, his faculties expanding, and 
 his eloquence rising with the importance of the 
 subjects on which it has been employed, how, in 
 every succeeding Session he has spoken with still 
 increasing weight, and authority, and effect, and 
 has called forth new resources of his enlightened 
 and comprehensive mind, no one can recollect
 
 MR. HOUNER. 169 
 
 these things, and not be led to conjecture, that, 
 notwithstanding the great excellence which he had 
 attained, still, if he had been longer spared, he 
 would have displayed powers not yet discovered 
 to the House, and of which, perhaps, he was 
 himself unconscious. 
 
 " But I should very ill express what I feel 
 upon this occasion, were I to consider the extra- 
 ordinary qualities which Mr. Horner possessed, 
 apart from the ends and objects to which they 
 were directed. THE GREATEST ELOQUENCE is IN 
 
 ITSELF BUT AN OBJECT OF VAIN AND TRANSIENT 
 ADMIRATION. IT IS ONLY WHEN ENNOBLED BY 
 THE USES TO WHICH IT IS APPLIED, WHEN DI- 
 RECTED TO GREAT AND VIRTUOUS ENDS, TO THE 
 PROTECTION OF THE OPPRESSED, TO THE EN- 
 FRANCHISEMENT OF THE ENSLAVED, TO THE EXTEN- 
 SION OF KNOWLEDGE, TO DISPELLING THE CLOUDS 
 OF IGNORANCE AND SUPERSTITION, TO THE AD- 
 VANCEMENT OF THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE 
 COUNTRY, AND TO' ENLARGING THE SPHERE OF 
 HUMAN HAPPINESS, THAT IT BECOMES A NATIONAL 
 BENEFIT AND A PUBLIC BLESSING. It is because 
 
 the powerful talents of which we are now de- 
 prived, have been uniformly exerted in the pur- 
 suit and promotion of such objects, that I con- 
 sider our loss, as one of the greatest, which in the 
 present state of the country, we could possibly 
 have sustained."
 
 170 SEDITIOUS MEETINGS BILL. 
 
 SEDITIOUS MEETINGS BILL. 
 March Uth, 1817. 
 
 THE Solictor General moved the third reading of 
 the Seditious Meetings Bill. 
 
 Sir Samuel Romilly rose to oppose it, and 
 after a few preliminary observations on the impro- 
 priety of hurrying so important a measure through 
 Parliament in the absence of so many of its Mem- 
 bers, proceeded to the following effect. 
 
 " I have always considered the Meetings of the 
 people as one of the most important parts of the 
 Constitution. It is to the exercise, Sir, of this privi- 
 lege, or rather right of the people, it is to the un- 
 restrained expression of public opinion on public 
 men and public measures, that Englishmen are in 
 a great degree indebted for that high feeling and 
 manly character which have distinguished them 
 from almost every other nation ; it is to this, that 
 the Government and Constitution of the Country 
 are no less indebted for that affectionate zeal and 
 attachment with which the people have been ac- 
 customed to regard them. Restrain this privilege, 
 and you at once weaken or destroy a source of 
 that glorious freedom, of that high spirit, and 
 of that just reverence for the laws and institutions
 
 SEDITIOUS MEETINGS BILL. . 171 
 
 of their country, which have ever been amongst 
 the noblest characteristics of Englishmen. 
 
 " Need I adduce, at this day, any proofs of 
 the good which the public voice is able to ac- 
 complish? Look at the Property Tax. What, 
 I ask, but the expression of public opinion at 
 public meetings, has prevented that most oppres- 
 sive and vexatious imposition from being super- 
 added to our present great and almost intolerable 
 burdens ? Look again at the Slave Trade. What 
 has constrained the King of France to abandon 
 that cruel and unholy traffic ? It was the expres- 
 sion of popular opinion. Let the glorious circum- 
 stance never be forgotten. It was the expression 
 of popular opinion, not by the representatives of 
 the people in this House, but by the people them- 
 selves, out of doors, which thus compelled the 
 French Government to renounce the Slave Trade; 
 which thus extended the laws of humanity and 
 justice to the farthest quarters of the globe. 
 
 " Sir, with respect to the public meetings 
 which have been recently convened for the dis- 
 cussion of political subjects, there seems to exist 
 no ground whatever for the imputations which are 
 cast upon them in the present Bill. Instead of 
 tumult and disorder, these assemblies are remark- 
 able for the peace and regularity with which they 
 have been conducted. To ascertain this fact, there 
 is no occasion to resort to the reports of secret 
 Committees, Or to conclusions drawn from secret
 
 172 . SEDITIOUS MEETINGS BILL. 
 
 evidence. The House has the same means of 
 judging as any Committee. The proceedings of 
 these meetings are all public. The speeches, re- 
 solutions, and all that passes at them, are matters 
 of public notoriety; they appear in the public 
 journals, and are circulated through every part of 
 the country. Every Member, therefore, has an 
 opportunity of ascertaining the truth or inaccuracy 
 of my statement. It is true that discontent will 
 exist among the poorer classes, whenever they 
 are pressed by any severe distress. A disposition 
 to tumult also may be excited by hunger no 
 less than by misled religious enthusiasm. But 
 though the present distress exceeds all bounds, 
 though in many instances it has driven the suf- 
 ferers to the commission of felonies and other 
 breaches of the law, yet at none of the public 
 meetings, in any part of the kingdom, with the 
 solitary exception of Spa Fields, has any disturb- 
 ance arisen. Whether this is one of the happy 
 consequences of that general diffusion of know- 
 ledge which now prevails, or of some other cause, 
 it is at present unnecessary to decide; but the 
 fact is, that at no former period have public 
 meetings been conducted with so much order and 
 deliberation. 
 
 " With the occurrences, Sir, in Spa Fields to 
 which I have alluded, the House is well acquaint- 
 ed, and has seen them, I trust, in their proper 
 light. On the dispersion of the first Meeting, se-
 
 SEDITIOUS MEETINGS BILL. 173 
 
 veral acts of violence were committed. They were 
 such, however, as often occur in a great Metro- 
 polis, and do not appear to have been at all con- 
 nected with the objects of the Meeting. At the 
 second Meeting, the outrages were undoubtedly of 
 a more serious nature. But let the House recol- 
 lect all that transpired before the tribunal where 
 these acts were investigated. From this, and 
 from every other source of information on the 
 subject, it certainly appears that there were per- 
 sons at the Meeting, who wished to excite dis- 
 order, and who calculated on the co-operation of 
 the people assembled, in their intended violation of 
 the public peace. This is evident, but it is also no 
 less evident that they were deceived in their calcu- 
 lations. So falsely, indeed, had they reasoned, 
 so ill had they reckoned, that notwithstanding 
 the general distress and consequent discontent 
 which prevailed, ' notwithstanding the excite- 
 ments to outrage held out, though banners were 
 displayed and leaders offered to a starving mul- 
 titude, yet, such was the general discretion and 
 peaceable disposition of the Meeting, that, with 
 all their efforts, these promoters of tumult could 
 only inveigle a few miserable wretches to follow 
 them, and in vain attempted any thing like a ge- 
 neral insurrection. 
 
 " I do not mean to say that the Meetings 
 on these occasions were harmless, or that no re- 
 straints ought to be laid upon such assemblies.
 
 174 SEDITIOUS MEETINGS BILL. 
 
 On the contrary, I think that obscure persons 
 should not be permitted to call Meetings at their 
 own pleasure, and to adjourn them from time to 
 time, to the terror of all peaceably disposed 
 persons, for the mere chance of what may result 
 from them. If the present Bill had for its object 
 a regulation on these points alone, if it went 
 to preclude all Meetings, unless called for by 
 a requisition of seven or even a greater number of 
 householders, if it rendered illegal all assem- 
 blies convened for undefined purposes, or pre- 
 vented those frequent adjournments, by which a 
 few ignorant and unknown individuals are en- 
 abled to form themselves into something like a 
 permanent body, sitting in judgment on their 
 fellow-subjects, if the present Bill was confined 
 to such objects, in place of opposing I should be 
 most anxious to give it all the support in my 
 power. But what is the proposed measure to ef- 
 fect? Instead of calming, it seems devised for no 
 other purpose than to provoke and inflame the 
 public mind. Its object is not to prevent, but to 
 punish. Though a Meeting should be called for 
 purposes the most illegal, though it should ap- 
 pear, from the very" terms of the notice in which it 
 is called, to be so intended, the Magistrates are 
 not previously to interfere. No they are to suf- 
 fer the people to assemble, they are to let the 
 work of mischief commence, and then, they or 
 any one of them may order the Meeting to dis- 
 3
 
 SEDITIOUS MEETINGS BILL. 175 
 
 perse, under penalty of death, to every individual 
 who shall be found disobeying the proclamation 
 for the space of one hour ! 
 
 " Such, Sir, is the clause of this Act which 
 applies to the unlawful assemblies of the people. 
 With respect to Meetings lawfully convened, and 
 for lawful purposes, but where something supposed 
 to be illegal may arise in the course of the pro- 
 ceedings, the Act is still worse. The very power 
 of deliberation will then be made to depend on 
 the individual discretion of every single Magis- 
 trate. Any one Justice of the Peace attending at 
 a public Meeting is authorized by this Act, to ar- 
 rest any person maintaining any proposition tend- 
 ing, in his opinion, to bring the Government into 
 contempt, or to alter any thing by law establish- 
 ed ; he may even, according to a learned Ser- 
 jeant (Best), order into custody any one whom he 
 believes to have an intention of that nature ; and 
 should the offender, or expected offender perhaps 
 some inflamed and misguided individual, offer 
 any resistance [LORD CASTLE REACH. ' Not indi- 
 vidual resistance.' SIR SAMUEL ROMILLY. ' Yes 
 individual resistance, according to the words of 
 the Act'] he may command the assembly to dis- 
 perse, and may commit all those, who do not, 
 within the space of one hour, obey his proclama- 
 tion, for a capital offence. This, Sir, I maintain, 
 is a cold deliberate cruelty. Better would it be at 
 once to declare that there shall be no Meetings
 
 176 gEDITIOUS MEETINGS BILL. 
 
 whatever, than thus to expose them to the caprice 
 of any officious or servile Magistrate; better 
 to forbid all public deliberation and complaint, 
 than to mock -the people with so dangerous a sem- 
 blance of freedom, than thus to permit them to 
 assemble, and, after they are heated past the 
 power of reflection, to consign them for the folly or 
 crime of, perhaps, a single individual, to the 
 hazard of ignominious and cruel deaths. I be- 
 seech the House to pause ; I beseech it to con- 
 sider the dangerous nature of the power now pro- 
 posed to be conferred upon the Magistrates, and 
 how liable it will be to abuse *. Has the House 
 yet looked forward to the probable consequences 
 of its rigour, or can it for a moment imagine that 
 the distress and discontent which now unhappily 
 pervade the country, will be removed or pacified 
 by this system of terror and coercion? Will the 
 people respect or confide in those, who, whilst 
 
 * Suppose, for instance (as Sir Samuel Romilly observed, 
 on a former reading of the Bill), at an assembly legally convened, 
 any one should state that it was a mockery on the Constitution, 
 for Old Sarum to return as many Representatives as the City of 
 Westminster or the County of York, and that the Representa- 
 tion of Scotland was no less a mockery. Some Justice of the 
 Peace might think such expressions seditious, and calculated to 
 bring our establishments into contempt. The consequence in 
 all probability -would be the arrest of the individual, and the dis- 
 persion of the Meeting \ Parliamentary Delates, March 10, 
 1817.
 
 SEDITIOUS MEETINGS BILL. 177 
 
 punishing their disorders, refuse even to inquire 
 into the provocations of them, who eagerly 
 seize on every pretext to suspend or diminish their 
 rights, but are deaf to their complaints, and pass 
 over their Petitions to the Order of the Day ! 
 
 " But a noble Lord (Castlereagh) has told us 
 that there is nothing new in the present Bill, 
 that it only confirms the acknowledged law of the 
 land. If, therefore, this is the law, if Magis- 
 trates already possess in such cases the powers of 
 arrest now asserted to belong to them ; why is this 
 Bill to be thus hurried through the House? Even 
 according to the noble Lord's own arguments it is 
 unnecessary. But I believe the noble Lord to be 
 mistaken in his view of the law. I know that in 
 1795, when a temporary measure, the very 
 model of the present, was first introduced into 
 Parliament, no such idea prevailed among the ex- 
 alted individuals who bore a part in the Debate on 
 either side of the House. It never occurred 
 either to Mr. Pitt or to Mr. Fox, to the Master 
 of the Rolls or to Mr. Erskine, to consider the 
 proposed measure in the light of a declaratory 
 law. However it might have been attempted to 
 be justified by some, it was deemed an innovation 
 by all. It called forth the most anxious discus- 
 sion, and was far, very far from being regarded 
 with the apathy which seems to attend its revival 
 at the present moment. 
 
 " Nor is the language of this Bill less extraor- 
 
 VOL. II. N
 
 178 SEDITIOUS MEETINGS BILL, 
 
 dinary than its substance. There is one clanse r 
 which, for the curious mode in which it is framed, 
 may be considered a masterpiece of legislation. 
 ' Every Justice of the Peace (it says) is hereby 
 authorized and empowered to do all such acts, as 
 he is hereby empowered to do, or as he is other- 
 wise by law, entitled to do,' or, in other words, 
 that he has power to do what he has power to do! 
 It is no excuse to say, that the same clause con- 
 stituted part of a former Bill; it will be no 
 justification for any mischief arising from such 
 indefinite language, that the same want of preci- 
 sion existed in an Act passed twenty years ago! 
 
 " It is not, however, on this ground, nor from 
 any doubts on my part as to the real objects of the 
 Bill, that I must refuse it my support. Its 
 frarners have taken care to be sufficiently explicit 
 with regard to the line of conduct which they 
 would encourage Magistrates to pursue. But it 
 has been said, that this Act rests upon constitu- 
 tional foundations, that it has been copied from 
 the Riot Act, which Act is now held up as esta- 
 blished and constitutional law \ It is perhaps 
 possible, though I think exceedingly improbable, 
 that that Act has produced good effects. The of- 
 fence against which it was directed might have 
 been as effectually suppressed under the ancient 
 law. The Riot Act, however, differs materially 
 from the present measure, as it extends only to 
 those, who have hern already criminal, who y
 
 SEDITIOUS MEETINGS tflLL. 179 
 
 after an actual breach of the peace, are still riot- 
 ously assembled. The Solicitor General states, 
 that the Riot Act has been found particularly 
 useful, inasmuch as no person has been ever ex- 
 ecuted under it. But has it answered the object 
 of its enactment ? Has it prevented riots ? Quite 
 the contrary. We have seen, since the passing 
 of that Act, and as if in defiance of it, the most 
 dangerous riots that have existed since the time of 
 Charles the First. In the year 1780, the Riot 
 Act was not even read, not from any apathy on 
 the part of the Magistrates, but because it would 
 have been in vain to attempt it. The terror of the 
 Act was absolutely null. Indeed, for the most 
 part, the people never know whether the Procla- 
 mation is read or not, the reader being inaudible 
 in the tumult, whenever the reading is rendered 
 necessary; so that any established signal which 
 could speak to the eyes, would be in all cases more 
 effectual. 
 
 " Again, in 1793, the riots at Birmingham last- 
 ed a fortnight or three weeks, in defiance of this 
 Act. The most atrocious outrages were commit- 
 ted without compunction or restraint. The Riot 
 Act was then of no more avail, than it had been in 
 1 780. What, therefore, does my learned Friend 
 (the Solicitor General) mean by saying, that the 
 Riot Act has been exceedingly useful, inasmuch as 
 no person has been executed under it? Would he 
 wish us from hence to infer that the Act has been 
 
 N2
 
 180 SEDITIOUS MEETINGS BILL. 
 
 the means of preventing executions? That it 
 has succeeded in the timely prevention or suppres- 
 sion of riots ? That it has obviated the occur- 
 rence of outrage, and the consequent necessity of 
 punishment? This, my learned Friend must be 
 aware, has been notoriously not the case. 
 
 "But whatever may be our opinions on the 
 efficacy or inefficacy, on the policy or impolicy of 
 the Riot Act, it is certainly no authority for in- 
 flicting so severe and cruel a punishment on par- 
 ties engaged in popular assemblies as is now pro- 
 posed. Against such penalties, indeed, in either 
 case I shall never cease to protest. They are dis- 
 proportioned to the offences, and therefore in- 
 adequate to their proposed ends. That the 
 punishment prescribed in the present Bill will, 
 from its severity, render the measure in a great 
 degree inoperative, I have no doubt ; and this is 
 the only consideration which can in any way re- 
 concile me to its enactments. Unless we can 
 alter the nature of man ; unless prosecutors shall 
 arise, more ferocious than any that have ever yet 
 existed, and juries shall be constituted very dif- 
 ferently from what they are at present, the punish- 
 ments now menaced can never be carried into ex- 
 ecution. 
 
 " As far as the Spenceans are concerned, the 
 Bill must, be all in vain. Every order of society 
 has an equal interest in the security and in- 
 equality of property. However some may par-
 
 SEDITIOUS MEETINGS BILL. 181 
 
 tially and for a time be blinded to the knowledge 
 of this incontrovertible truth, by ignorant and pre- 
 sumptuous enthusiasts, the certainty of it must, 
 in the long run, be brought home to their convic- 
 tions. But they can only be taught this by the 
 force of reason. Education will enable them to 
 distinguish between the productions of enlightened 
 men, and the unmeaning nonsense with which it is 
 sometimes attempted to mislead their understand- 
 ings. Every other effort must be vain. To diffuse 
 truth, or repress error, by force, is no more practi- 
 cable than to take a besieged town with syllo- 
 gisms. 
 
 " Before I conclude, let me once more entreat 
 this House to pause in its career ; let me conjure 
 it, in the language of a noble Lord (William 
 Russell) whose ancestors have acquired immortal 
 glory by the exertions and fortitude which they 
 have displayed in defending the Constitution of 
 their country, to consider whether we have not 
 parted with enough of our liberties already. Never 
 surely was there a time when those liberties were 
 more valuable or more necessary. After all the hor- 
 rors of a protracted war; after the lives we have 
 spent, the treasures we have exhausted, the suf- 
 ferings we have endured ; after having attained, 
 as it is said, every object of our ambition, we 
 find, in the very beginning of this glorious peace, 
 our manufacturers starving, our agriculture de- 
 pressed, and our revenue unequal to our expendi- 
 
 N3
 
 182 WELSH JUDGES. 
 
 ture. We have seen that security of our personal 
 freedom, the Habeas Corpus, suspended; we 
 have forfeited our ancient character for hospita- 
 lity by a Peace- Alien Bill, which subjects every 
 foreigner who may visit this country from motives 
 of traffic or curiosity, to the caprice of a few indi- 
 viduals; and, lastly, to crown the whole, we are 
 called on to suppress the meetings of the people, 
 and to deny to their sufferings even the conso- 
 Jation of complaint." 
 
 The House divided, when the numbers were: 
 For the third reading - 179 
 Against it - - - - 44 
 
 Majority 135 
 
 WELSH JUDGES. 
 
 March I8th t 1817. 
 
 MR. Calcraft moved for a writ for the election of 
 a new Member to serve in Parliament for the 
 borough of Bridport, in the room of Mr. Serjeant 
 Best, who had accepted the office of one of the 
 Justices of the Great Sessions of Wales. 
 
 Sir Samuel Romilly took that opportunity of 
 palling the attention of the House to the distinc-
 
 WELSH JUDGES. 183 
 
 tion made between English and Welsh Judges, 
 with regard to their capacity of sitting in Parlia- 
 ment. The constituents of the learned Gentle- 
 man himself had nothing to complain of, as it 
 remained for them to determine whether their re- 
 presentative was as likely to be attentive to their 
 interests after, as before, his acceptance of that 
 office. 
 
 But the point was of great constitutional 
 importance. He had never been able to under- 
 stand at what period this difference between Eng- 
 lish and Welsh Judges originated, nor how such 
 an irregularity could ever have been allowed by 
 the Constitution. The latter had duties equally 
 arduous, although not so frequently exercised, as 
 those of the former. They had to sit in judgment 
 in cases affecting the property, reputation, and lives 
 of His Majesty's subjects. The due exercise of 
 their functions required the same general qualifi- 
 cations, the same impartiality of character, and 
 the same abstinence from party conflicts. The 
 fact, however, unfortunately was, that these offices 
 were considered not professional, but political, 
 and were, he had reason to believe, not in the gift 
 of the Lord Chancellor, but of the first Lord of 
 the Treasury. [Some signs of' dissent were exhi- 
 bited on the opposite side.^ He spoke from a recol- 
 lection of information communicated to him many 
 years ago on the expression of his surprise at some 
 
 N 4
 
 184 WELSH JUDGES. 
 
 former appointments ; and was inclined to think it 
 was correct. 
 
 These observations were evidently not directed 
 against the recent appointment of the learned 
 Serjeant, whose great practice and long experi- 
 ence fully qualified him, in those respects, for the 
 situation. The House, however, he thought, was 
 bound to take into its consideration the propriety 
 of suffering any man to unite in himself the cha- 
 racters of a Member of Parliament and of a 
 Judge. In point of practical consequence, it was 
 undeniable, that those Hon. Members always 
 placed implicit confidence in the Ministers of the 
 Crown. He had heard, he regretted to say, of 
 many visionary projects of Parliamentary Reform. 
 He was sorry that such ideas should be entertain- 
 ed, as they were calculated to injure the cause of 
 real Reform. Of practical and temperate Reform 
 he had always been, both before and since he enter- 
 ed that House, a sincere advocate; nor did he 
 know of any surer step towards it, nor one cal- 
 culated to give more general satisfaction, than 
 to render ineligible all those persons, whose offices 
 necessarily made them dependent on the Ministers 
 of the Crown, and more especially those who held 
 judicial appointments.
 
 LOTTERIES. ]85 
 
 LOTTERIES. 
 
 March 18th, 1817. 
 
 MR. Lyttelton brought forward his Motion for the 
 suppression of State Lotteries. 
 
 The Chancellor of the Exchequer defended Lot- 
 teries on the ground of State necessity. Alluding 
 to the petition of the City of London against them, 
 he observed, that the scruples of that body were 
 of a very late date. It was not many years since 
 they had procured an Act of Parliament for effect- 
 ing some improvements by means of a Lottery. 
 The practical question for the House to consider, 
 was, whether a Revenue of ^500,000 a year, a 
 Revenue voluntarily paid, could be given up with- 
 out any proposed substitute. 
 
 Sir Samuel Romilly said, he should have 
 been better pleased, if, instead of ridiculing the 
 altered opinions of the City of London on the 
 subject of Lotteries, the Chancellor of the Ex- 
 chequer had changed his own. All that had been 
 said in support of the system, was, that we could 
 not afford to relinquish such a source of Revenue ; 
 but still less could we afford to relinquish the morals 
 and honest industry of the people. Let the pro- 
 fits of the Lottery be placed against the losses of
 
 186 LOTTERIES. 
 
 the Revenue occasioned by the deterioration of 
 the public habits, and by the numbers that are 
 added to the enormous amount of the Poor Rates, 
 and who, instead of a benefit, become a burden 
 to the community. 
 
 His Right Hon. Friend had spoken of gaming, 
 as a natural appetite, which, unless allowed to 
 gratify itself on State Lotteries, would resort to 
 other and more destructive modes of enjoyment. 
 Now he (Sir Samuel Romilly) considered it as an 
 unnatural and artificial habit, which if not abso- 
 lutely created, was, at least, greatly encouraged by 
 Government. 
 
 The evils spread through every village in the 
 country, where persons were employed in posting 
 up bills to attract poor miserable creatures, and 
 inflame them with the hopes of sudden wealth. 
 He could wish the Report of 1808 had been re- 
 printed. The facts proved to the Committee, 
 showed that bakers, butchers, and others found 
 their trades diminish during the Lottery, while 
 that of the pawnbrokers increased. Women were 
 allured to spend the hard earnings of industrious 
 husbands, and to pawn their clothes, and those of 
 their children. Some of the witnesses spoke 
 strongly of the heart-breaking scenes of misery 
 they had seen,-^of the total loss of all domestic 
 comforts, of families converted from sociality 
 into strife, of husbands driven to despair, and 
 running away and leaving their families on the
 
 LOTTERIES. 187 
 
 parish, of numbers, through this fatal propensity, 
 being driven to suicide and madness. The Ordi- 
 nary of Newgate stated, that, by the confessions of 
 individual criminals, a large proportion of them 
 traced their ill fate to practices in the Lottery. 
 Merchants' clerks, and young men of decent 
 habits, were seduced frequently into acts of dis- 
 honesty, and ruined by it. It was not enough to 
 ascribe the evils to the former insurances; they 
 still continued, from the temptation and seduc- 
 tions, to buy shares. 
 
 The nature of these allurements might be 
 seen in the advertisements in the newspapers, 
 which contained the strongest moral poison, and 
 the most diabolical arts to seduce even boys. 
 Part of some of these he read. Under the title 
 of " Christmas-boxes," one of them stated, that 
 a careful lad had not spent his money in amuse- 
 ments, but ventured in the Lottery by buying 
 two sixteenths; that thereby he got a capital 
 prize, and had become an opulent merchant in 
 London. Another said, that a poor public-house 
 lad had gained .1200, and was living in retire- 
 ment; and that now ^2800 might be acquired 
 for a similar chance. Another stated, that a 
 milkwoman had come in for a little of the cream 
 of the Lottery by a sixteenth share of a prize of 
 ^20,000. Another scheme was addressed to the 
 soldiers, respecting a supplementary Lottery ; and 
 they were told, that officers had got ^2500, and
 
 188 LOTTERIES. 
 
 ^3000; and privates ,600. The Chancellor of 
 the Exchequer might laugh at all this, and treat 
 the opinions of others contemptuously. Knowing 
 the private virtues of that Right Hon. Gentle- 
 man, he must say, that his conduct excited his 
 astonishment. He could not exactly tell what to 
 make of the seeming incongruity of the Right 
 Hon. Gentleman's appearance; on one day, taking 
 the lead in a Bible Society, and on another, 
 meeting a set of Lottery contractors. The matter 
 seemed unaccountable. He wished the Right Hon. 
 Gentleman to listen to what he said. It would be 
 good for persons holding high stations, which 
 gave them so much influence over the condition of 
 their fellow-creatures, to see personally the mi- 
 series of others. Let the Right Hon. Gentleman 
 enter the Poor Houses, the Mad Houses, and the 
 Prisons, and how many diseased, squalid, and un- 
 fortunate wretches would he find, who owed their 
 misery to the temptations of Lotteries ! Many, 
 after spending all they had of their own, and all 
 they could borrow, became at last victims to 
 public justice. These results were proved. Could 
 the Right Hon. Gentleman see these things, it 
 was not in his nature to persevere. 
 
 It was to be hoped the House would redeem 
 its character. The restrictions on the Lottery 
 were quite insufficient. It was easy to under- 
 stand that there might exist great evils which 
 could not be suppressed. In natural vices we
 
 LOTTERIES. 189 
 
 could only correct, but in the Lottery we created 
 the vice. The evil was said to be diminished, 
 though he (Sir S. R.) thought it was increased, or 
 if it should appear less this year, it arose only, he 
 believed, from the want of means in the public. He 
 should not, however, be surprised if the Lottery 
 trade increased ; for distressed persons were led to 
 sacrifice what remained to them by vain hopes. 
 He could have nothing new to offer in objection to 
 Lotteries; the evils were well known; and he 
 could only repeat objections formerly stated. He 
 trusted his Hon. Friend would persevere. If he 
 did not, he (Sir S. R.) would ; and the Chancellor 
 of the Exchequer should hear all the objections 
 re-stated, whenever he proposed a measure so 
 injurious to the best interests of the country. 
 The House divided : 
 
 For the Motion - 26 
 
 Against it - - - 73 
 
 Majority - - - 47 

 
 190 
 
 STATE OF THE REPRESENTATION. 
 
 , 1817. 
 
 SIR Francis Burdett moved for a select Committee 
 to inquire into the Representation of the country. 
 He was supported by Mr. Brand, Lord Cochrane, 
 Mr. Curwen, Sir Samuel Romilly, and Mr. Tier- 
 ney, and opposed by Sir John Nicholl, Mr. J. W. 
 Ward, Mr. Lamb, and Lord Milton. Sir Samuel 
 Romilly (who rose after Mr. J. W. Ward) spoke to 
 the following effect. 
 
 " Mr. Speaker, although I present myself to 
 the House immediately after iny Hon. Friend, I 
 can assure you, that it is with no intention of 
 following him through all the topics of his elo- 
 quent and elaborate speech. It is evident from 
 many of them, that he had anticipated a course 
 altogether different from that which the Debate 
 has taken, and that he had come prepared to 
 answer arguments which, to his disappointment, 
 no one on this side of the House has thought of 
 advancing. On some of these topics, however, 
 if I possessed one faculty in as eminent a degree 
 as my Hon. Friend appears to possess it, that of 
 memory, I might give him a complete answer, in 
 language and in eloquence, not inferior to what 
 we have heard this night. I should only have to
 
 STATE OP THE REPRESENTATION. 191 
 
 repeat the Speeches which my Hon. Friend has 
 himself delivered in this House, in the course 
 of the war, more particularly his memorable 
 speeches on the Walcheren Expedition and the 
 Spanish Campaign, where he censures, in the 
 strongest terms, the blunders and misconduct of 
 those very Ministers whom he now so indiscrimi- 
 nately extols. 
 
 " Sir, my Hon. Friend has thought proper to 
 enliven his speech, this evening, with quotations 
 from a book which has recently appeared on the 
 subject of Parliamentary Reform *, a book, in- 
 deed, which he says that he has not read, and 
 which he seems to have referred to for no other 
 reason than because it condemns the conduct 
 both of Whigs and Tories. The justice of this 
 indiscriminate censure, no one, certainly, is better 
 qualified to appreciate than the Hon. Gentleman, 
 who has been so intimately connected with both 
 parties, and who after passing so many years 
 of his political life in censuring with Whigs 
 the maladministration of Tories, now comes for- 
 ward to distinguish himself in the ranks of the 
 Tories by his sarcasms on the W T higs ! For the 
 author of the work in question I entertain the 
 sincerest respect and affection. He is a man of 
 the greatest talents and the purest integrity, and 
 
 Plan of Parliamentary Reform, &c. by Jeremy Benfeharo, Esq.
 
 192 STATE OF THE REPRESENTATION. 
 
 has devoted a long- life to the advancement of the 
 best interests of mankind. On the present occa- 
 sion, however, I am obliged to express my dissent 
 from some of his opinions, and my regret that the 
 Book now referred to should ever have been 
 published. 
 
 " Sir, without entering fully into the question 
 of Parliamentary Reform, a question so often 
 discussed, that little, or nothing new, remains to be 
 said upon it, I shall content myself with cor- 
 dially voting for the present Motion. I give this 
 vote, not from any vain hope of popularity, 
 not from an expectation of being able to gratify 
 those who now influence the public opinion on this 
 subject, but from a sincere, a deep-rooted con- 
 viction, that some Reform is necessary. I am a 
 friend neither to Universal Suffrage nor to An- 
 nual Parliaments. I even doubt whether I am 
 prepared to go, all at once, so far as to make the 
 right of voting- at Elections co-extensive with 
 taxation ; but for some Reform, for some mate- 
 rial change in the present system, I am, and long 
 have been, a zealous advocate. At an early pe- 
 riod of my life, long before I had a seat in Par- 
 liament, when from the gallery of this House I 
 first witnessed its deliberations, and heard Mr. 
 Pitt, with all the generous ardour of youth, and 
 with the same eloquence which distinguished his 
 maturer age, pleading the cause of Parliamentary 
 Reform, I became sensible to the necessity of that 
 
 3
 
 STATE OF THB REPRESENTATION. 193 
 
 measure. The impressions which were then 
 made on my mind, have never been effaced. Sub- 
 sequent reflection and observation more parti- 
 cularly since I have myself become a Member 
 have only served to confirm them. 
 
 " A Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir John Nicholl) 
 has said that Mr. Pitt, in a more advanced period 
 of his life, retracted his earlier opinions on this 
 subject. I know not what authority he has for 
 saying so. Mr. Pitt never avowed such a change 
 of opinion ; and though I have no admiration for 
 that distinguished person (the principles on which 
 he acted during the greater part of his long admi- 
 nistration having, in my opinion, but ill accord- 
 ed with the earlier professions of his public life), 
 yet, upon this particular subject I cannot but 
 consider the statement as a slander on his me- 
 mory. But supposing that Mr. Pitt had avowed 
 such a change ; the people will know how to ap- 
 preciate it. They will understand the motives of 
 men, who change their principles with their sta- 
 tions, and who, on fixing themselves in office, op- 
 pose those rights of which they had been pre- 
 viously the most zealous advocates. The People 
 are not to be deluded by the story of the opera- 
 tion of years in altering opinions notoriously 
 founded on the best principles of the Constitution. 
 " But we have been told, as usual, that this 
 is not a time for any reform in the constitution of 
 
 VOL. II. O
 
 1!M STATE OF THE RKPRESENTATION. 
 
 the House of Commons ! Sir, if ever there was a 
 period more particularly favourable for the pro- 
 posed attempt, it is the present. We are in a 
 state of peace ; the effects of the bad policy on 
 which the Government has been acting, are at 
 this moment most severely felt ; the call for Re- 
 form is general throughout the country. Never 
 was the sense of the people so decidedly in favour 
 of the measure. Never, upon any former occa- 
 sion, have there been so many Petitions, or Peti- 
 tions so numerouly signed. It is said that they 
 go too far, that they demand nothing less than ra- 
 dical Reform, than Universal Suffrage and Annual 
 Parliaments. Undoubtedly, I regret to say, many 
 of these Petitions do ask for more than ought, in 
 my opinion, to be granted ; but is this a reason for 
 refusing every thing? Is this a reason for re- 
 jecting the prayers of those who only solicit what 
 is just and necessary ? The City of London, the 
 County of Cornwall, and many other places have 
 petitioned not for Annual, but Triennial Parlia- 
 ments, not for Universal Suffrage and election 
 by Ballot, but for reforming such abuses as noto- 
 riously exist, in the manner which shall seem 
 most fit to the wisdom of Parliament. Can any 
 thing be more moderate, or less objectionable 
 than these Petitions ? They deserve the most se- 
 rious attention. 
 
 " Sir, the Hon. Gentleman has stated that he 
 does not believe there is a man in Parliament who
 
 STATE OF THE REPRESENTATION. 195 
 
 has adopted the wild notion of Universal Suf- 
 frage. What danger then does he apprehend 
 from the appointment of a Committee ? What 
 possible injury from the proposed inquiry? Does 
 he seriously anticipate a revolution as the pos- 
 sible consequence of throwing a few rotten Bo- 
 roughs into the popular scale ? I will not calum- 
 niate his understanding by attributing to him 
 such an opinion. For my own part I do not 
 hesitate to say, that even if the Committee should 
 go no further than to remove a few of these eye- 
 sores to the Constitution, an object would be 
 gained. The people would see, that their united 
 prayers were no longer disregarded, that they 
 were, at least, considered as having some little 
 concern in the Government under which they 
 lived, that when the whole nation spoke, the 
 House showed some sensibility to its call. Even 
 in its more remote consequences the removal of 
 three or four of these Boroughs might be bene- 
 ficial. It sometimes happens that a question is 
 maintained with an exact equality on both sides of 
 the House, until at length the balance is turned 
 against the interests of the people, by the acces- 
 sion of three or four Borough Members to the 
 Ministerial scale. 
 
 " The Right Hon. and learned Gentleman 
 affects to make very light of the declared opi- 
 nions of the people. Their opinions, he supposes, 
 have been suggested to them by unprincipled and 
 
 o2
 
 196 STATB OF THE REPRESENTATION. 
 
 designing leaders, and he would persuade the 
 House, that a few demagogues have, by some 
 marvellous and unexplained means, been able to 
 get the signatures of more than half a million 
 of persons to the Petitions on the table. He pro- 
 fesses the highest respect for the people's voice, 
 but none for their senseless clamour! That is, 
 in other words, when any popular cry concurs 
 with the opinion, or suits the politics of the 
 learned Gentleman (as when his friends forced 
 their way into administration by the cry of " No 
 Popery"), he respects the people's voice; but when 
 what they call for is only to secure their own 
 liberties and to impose checks on the abuse of 
 power in Ministers, then, forsooth, their Peti- 
 tions are to be disregarded and contemned as 
 senseless clamour ! 
 
 " But we are told to take warning from the 
 revolution in France! Can any one who con- 
 templates for a moment the principles of the 
 British constitution, can any one with the his- 
 tory of this country and of the nations of the 
 continent before his eyes, conceive any thing so 
 monstrous as that the application of Reform to 
 the degenerate condition of her decayed Boroughs 
 is to produce revolution ? The Hon. Gentleman's 
 caution will be best applied to himself. It should 
 be his care to beware of the French revolution. 
 That revolution sprung not from the concession, 
 but from the obstinate refusal, of all Reform.
 
 STATE OF THE REPRESENTATION. 197 
 
 Instead of correcting abuses, the Government 
 persevered in retaining 1 them, until they had be- 
 come so intolerable, that the whole nation revolted 
 against them, and in the universal feeling of dis- 
 gust and indignation excited, the old Government 
 and all its institutions were destroyed. The lesson, 
 therefore, which the French revolution teaches, is, 
 not to reject all proposals of Reform till the time 
 for Reform has gone by, and the calamities of re- 
 volution have become inevitable. Of this fact the 
 Hon. Gentleman must be perfectly aware; though 
 he has counselled the House to disregard it, 
 though he would fain have us believe, that a 
 timely acquiescence in the desires of the People 
 is more dangerous than the most obstinate resist- 
 ance to their demands ! 
 
 " The Right Hon. and learned Gentleman has 
 represented the British Constitution as being of so 
 delicate a frame, that the least derangement of ex- 
 isting practices may cause its destruction. The 
 slightest scratch, he says, may fester and become 
 a mortal wound. Surely this is a slander on the 
 Constitution. It is of a more robust and vigor- 
 ous frame. When it has stood so many shocks, 
 when it has survived the innovation of the 
 Septennial Act and the Irish Union, who is there 
 that can seriously believe it will be endanger- 
 ed by recurring to Triennial Parliaments, or by 
 transferring the Elective Franchise from the de- 
 cayed and deserted Boroughs to the inhabitants 
 
 o3
 
 198 STATE OF THE REPRESENTATION. 
 
 of populous and flourishing towns? The view, 
 which the Hon. Gentleman who spoke last, has 
 taken of the subject, is perfectly new. He con- 
 siders the present state of the Representation 
 not, as it really is, the unforeseen consequence 
 of gradual decay and accident, and aa imper- 
 ceptibly brought about by that ' greatest of in- 
 novators ' time, but as the effect of design, and 
 the result of the wisdom of our ancestors ! He 
 describes the representation of Old Sarum as en- 
 titled to as much respect as that of the county of 
 York ! And it is to such deviations from all the 
 principles of the Constitution, or, to use his own 
 terms, to such contrivances of ancient wisdom, 
 that this country is indebted for all the happiness 
 and prosperity which it now enjoys, and which 
 the Right Hon. and learned Gentleman has ad- 
 monished us not to bring into danger by our 
 desire of change! Who, that heard this lan- 
 guage, would imagine that the Hon. Gentleman 
 was speaking of a time, like the present, of a 
 time, when our foreign trade is diminished, our 
 manufacturers unemployed, our agricultural in- 
 terests labouring under difficulties such as have 
 been never before known, our poor rates increased 
 until it is scarcely possible to levy them, the re- 
 venue of the State falling far short of its expendi- 
 ture, and the nation struggling under a burden 
 of taxation, which it is unable to support ? These 
 are the blessings for which we are told to be so
 
 STATE OF THE REPRESENTATION. 199 
 
 thankful, arid which we are accused of bringing 
 into danger! Nor are these all. To complete 
 the picture of national prosperity one more stroke 
 was wanting, and that was, to suspend the Con- 
 stitution ! In addition to all their other griev- 
 ances, Englishmen have now to bewail the loss of 
 those safeguards of their liberties, the writ of 
 Habeas Corpus, and the Trial by Jury! Is it 
 wonderful, then, that such a state of things should 
 have produced discontent? Is it extraordinary 
 that the People, under such circumstances, should 
 be induced to look for relief to a Reform in Par- 
 liament, to a measure, which they had seen such 
 men as Mr. Fox and Mr. Pitt, who were opposed 
 to each other on almost eveiy other subject, com- 
 bining to obtain, as a remedy for the many evils 
 under which their country laboured ? 
 
 " Sir, the House will do well to pause, before 
 it disappoints all the hopes of the Country by 
 refusing even an inquiry into the subject. In 
 all their distresses, the People have looked up to 
 Parliament. It is from a persuasion that their 
 grievances can be redressed by the Legislature 
 alone, that they have implored the Regent to as- 
 semble the Parliament. And shall we be deaf to 
 their entreaties? Shall we disappoint all their 
 wishes ? I hope not. Though I do not go so far 
 as many of the Petitioners ; though I am an ad- 
 vocate neither for Universal Suffrage nor Annual 
 Parliaments, there are many alterations from 
 
 o 4
 
 200 BTATE OF THE REPRESENTATION. 
 
 which I have no doubt that the happiest results 
 would flow. Among the first of these is the re- 
 peal of the Septennial Act. In the last Session 
 of a Parliament, or when its dissolution is appre- 
 hended, the sentiments of the People acquire an 
 influence here which they possess at no other time. 
 Measures, which a Minister will confidently 
 reckon on in the first Session of a Parliament, it 
 frequently becomes impossible for him to carry, as 
 the period of its dissolution approaches. Does 
 any person believe that the Property Tax would 
 have been rejected in a first or second Session ? 
 Some one mentions the Petitions of the People as 
 the cause of the rejection. But if that was the 
 motive, if it was a pure regard and attention to 
 the interests and opinions of the People which 
 then guided the House, might we not expect to 
 find some proofs of this popular influence on other 
 occasions ? Why did not the same cause produce 
 the same effect on our deliberations respecting the 
 Corn Laws, or the Salt Duties, or our memorable 
 resolutions upon the Walcheren Expedition? 
 Does any one really believe, that those mea- 
 sures would have been carried, if the People were 
 fairly represented in this House ? 
 
 " Sir, the Hon. Gentleman, besides holding out 
 the dangers of innovation, alleges that if once 
 we begin any Reform, there is no saying at what 
 point it will stop. This is the artifice which is 
 always resorted to, when improvements of any
 
 STATE OF THE REPRESENTATION. 201 
 
 kind are proposed. The same argument is ad- 
 vanced against the Catholics of Ireland. If we 
 relieve them from the disabilities of which they 
 now complain, we are told, that they will next 
 require the abolition of tithes, and afterwards, 
 that their tenets shall become the established re- 
 ligion of the Island. Sir, the answer to these 
 sophisms is, that each question must be decided 
 on its own merits ; and that we are not justified 
 in refusing what is just and expedient, by the 
 possibility of such a concession being followed by 
 the demand of what is contrary. 
 
 " There is one point to which I must still 
 refer, and on which I entirely differ from the 
 Hon. Baronet, who has brought forward this 
 Motion. He considers the present Borough Sys- 
 tem as calculated to lessen the influence, and to 
 impose restraints on the authority of the Crown. 
 So far from operating in this manner, I am con- 
 vinced that it has increased both. It is the cor- 
 rupt instrument by which the Ministers of the 
 Crown are enabled to extend and to support that 
 patronage and power which have arrived at such 
 an alarming height within the last century." 
 
 Sir Samuel Romilly, after a few more observa- 
 tions, concluded by saying, that among the pa- 
 trons of Boroughs were many honourable men, 
 who exercised their power of returning Mem- 
 bers to that House in the noblest manner, who 
 appointed persons solely from the good opinion
 
 202 IRISH INSC/RRECTIOPf ACT. 
 
 which they entertained of their principles and ta- 
 lents; but in general, those who purchased that 
 species of patronage, bought it, like other property, 
 to make the most of their bargain. The conse- 
 quence was, that it generally fell into the hands 
 of Ministers, who had the means of outbidding all 
 other candidates. Thinking this a great evil, and 
 being most anxious to see it corrected, he should 
 certainly vote for the appointment of the proposed 
 Committee. 
 
 The House divided : 
 
 Ayes --------77 
 
 Noes ------- .265 
 
 Majority against the Motion 188 
 
 IRISH INSURRECTION ACT. 
 
 May 23d, 1817. 
 
 JVlK. Peel moved the second reading of a Bill, 
 " to continue an Act, made in the 54th Year of 
 His present Majesty's reign, intituled, An Act to 
 provide for the preserving and restoring of Peace 
 in such Parts of Ireland as may at any Time be 
 disturbed by seditious Persons, or by Persons en- 
 tering into unlawful Combinations or Conspira- 
 cies." Sir Samuel Romilly objected to the fur-
 
 IRISH INSURRECTION ACT. 203 
 
 ther progress of the Bill. Was the House doing 
 its duty to the people of Ireland, in renewing a 
 measure of such extraordinary rigour, without 
 some inquiry into the actual condition of that 
 country ? Without some authentic information to 
 guide the exercise of its authority ? Was it any 
 justification of such a law a law at variance 
 with every principle of our free Constitution, 
 that it would depend on the discretion of the Ex- 
 ecutive power and its Magistrates, whether it 
 should, or should not, be applied ? By this Bill, 
 it would be in the power of the Magistrates to 
 declare any particular district to be disturbed, 
 and to arrest any individual who should be found 
 out of his dwelling-house one hour before sun- 
 rise, or after sunset. Every person so acting 
 was pronounced by this Bill to be a disorderly 
 person, and subjected to the punishment of trans- 
 portation without a trial by Jury, and by the 
 judgment merely of the Magistrates in Sessions. 
 It moreover empowered Magistrates, person- 
 ally, to enter any house in the middle of the 
 night, and to decide on the character of its 
 owner, whether he was to be considered as a 
 disorderly and suspicious person, by the fact of 
 his being present, or absent from his habitation. 
 He would not assert that the unhappy state of 
 Ireland might not require harsh measures of legis- 
 lation measures, which were unknown in this 
 country, except as history communicated to us
 
 204 IRISH INSURRECTION ACT. 
 
 the restraints endured under the iron yoke of Wil- 
 liam the Conqueror ; but he was convinced that 
 the House, as the representative of Irish, as well 
 as other interests, would not discharge its duty 
 faithfully in voting- such measures without perfect 
 information of the circumstances to which they 
 were intended to apply. The Right Hon. Gentle- 
 man who proposed this Bill, on another occasion 
 had said, that he should be sorry to exchange the 
 substantial happiness enjoyed by Ireland at pre- 
 sent, for the visionary benefits expected from 
 Catholic emancipation ! Here then the House 
 witnessed a token of that substantial happiness ! 
 
 The moderation shown in the enforcement 
 of this Act had been much talked of by the Right 
 Hon. Gentleman and his friends. He (Sir S. 
 Romilly) however believed, that no fewer than 
 sixty or seventy persons had been transported 
 under it. But ought the House to be satisfied 
 with the declaration of Government itself, as to 
 the use it might have made of this unmeasured 
 and arbitrary authority? Was a British House 
 of Commons to be told that despotic power had 
 been leniently applied ? If this principle were 
 once admitted, why did they not surrender at 
 once to the discretion of the King's Government 
 every security established by the Constitution? 
 He knew this Act to be a continuation of a mea- 
 sure first brought forward in the year 1807, after 
 he had quilted office. He had voted against it at
 
 IRISH INSURRECTION ACT. 
 
 that period, and would have done so, had he con- 
 tinued to be a Member of the Government. 
 Among other things, he then protested in the Com- 
 mittee against that odious and detestable clause 
 which authorized the entrance of officers at mid- 
 night into the chambers even of women. Against 
 that, clause, as well indeed as against the whole 
 Bill, he again entered his protest. If we could 
 not place our brethren of Ireland precisely in 
 the same state of freedom and enjoyment with 
 ourselves, we ought at least to put them for- 
 ward in the course, and to give them some in- 
 termediate gradation between oppression and li- 
 berty. He felt himself as much the representa- 
 tive of that country as of any other part of 
 the empire, and he thought that he had a right to 
 call for more exact and copious information be- 
 fore he proceeded to legislate to this extent. He 
 required, as he felt it to be the duty of the House 
 to require, some certain knowledge whether the 
 necessity, if such necessity existed, for these pro- 
 ceedings, originated in the ignorance, the distress, 
 or the unfortunate dissensions of that country. 
 
 Sir Samuel Romilly then alluded to Catholic 
 Emancipation, and expressed his surprise at the 
 continuance of an Administration, which was di- 
 vided in opinion upon so momentous a subject, and 
 at the extraordinary spectacle of the Cabinet Mi- 
 nisters being left in a minority upon a question, 
 which they themselves considered, and contended,
 
 206 IRISH INSURRECTION ACT. 
 
 was one of vital importance to the peace of Ire- 
 land and the security of the Empire. Was it to 
 be doubted, that whilst such a system of things 
 continued, the occasion, or the necessity, as it 
 was called, for these unconstitutional proceedings 
 would also continue? The state of Ireland, he 
 feared, would remain unaltered in these circum- 
 stances, and it would still be the work of poli- 
 tical wisdom, after uniting the two countries, 
 to unite Ireland with herself. He would not 
 then go at any length into the discussion of the 
 claims of the Catholics, but was convinced that 
 they involved a principal, though a remote cause 
 of the unhappy circumstances which led to the 
 present proposition. With these views, it was his 
 intention to move, that the Bill be read a second 
 time that day six months, unless the Right Hon. 
 Gentleman should consent to some previous 
 inquiry. 
 
 The Bill was passed. 

 
 RIGHT OF MAGISTRATES TO VISIT PRISONS. 207 
 
 RIGHT OF MAGISTRATES TO VISIT 
 PRISONS. 
 
 June IStft, 1817. 
 
 LORD Folkestone rose to move for copies of the in- 
 structions sent by the Secretary of State for the 
 Home Department to all Gaolers or other officers 
 respecting the custody and treatment of persons 
 confined under the Act for suspending the Ha- 
 beas Corpus. The circumstances which called for 
 the Motion were these. There were three persons 
 under confinement in Reading Gaol, upon a charge 
 of treasonable practices ; they were called State 
 prisoners ; and in consequence of some orders 
 transmitted by the Secretary of State to the 
 Gaoler, the visiting- Magistrates of Berkshire were 
 not allowed to see them. Now, he (Lord Folke- 
 stone) felt himself entitled to complain, that he 
 was deprived of the right, which he had as a 
 Magistrate of that county, to visit that Gaol ; and 
 he had no hesitation in saying, that the authority 
 which had been assumed by the Secretary of State 
 was a gross violation of Law. By the 31st of 
 the King, ch. 46, it was expressly declared, 
 " that, for the better preventing all abuses in 
 County Gaols, the Magistrates for the County, 
 of their own accord, and without being appointed
 
 208 RIGHT OF MAGISTRATES 
 
 visitors, might, from time to time, enter into 
 such Gaols, and examine into the treatment of 
 the Prisoners; and if they saw any abuse, that 
 they should report the same to the Quarter Ses- 
 sions, and no abuse so reported should be allow- 
 ed any longer to continue." When the House 
 found that this Act remained on the Statute Book 
 unrepealed, what would they say to the order of 
 the Secretary of State, who had taken upon him- 
 self to prevent the Magistrates from visiting the 
 County Gaols ? The power thus arrogated was 
 illegal and unconstitutional : it was a direct vio- 
 lation of that clause in the Bill of Rights, which 
 declared, that the laws of the Land should not be 
 suspended or dispensed with, without the autho- 
 rity of Parliament. 
 
 The Attorney General contended that eveiy 
 Gaol was the King's Gaol, and that the right to 
 control the access to State Prisoners was one of 
 the prerogatives of the Crown, and had always 
 been exercised by the Secretary of State. It had 
 been exercised before and since the Revolution up 
 to the 31st of the King without opposition, and 
 that Statute did not in any way affect or alter the 
 prerogative. 
 
 Sir Samuel Romilly said that he had never 
 heard a doctrine more dangerous, novel, or desti- 
 tute of all foundation than that advanced by the 
 Attorney General. It was of little importance to 
 inquire what the power of the Crown was in this
 
 to visit PRISONS. 209 
 
 respect before the Act of 1791. The question 
 was, whether a Secretary of State, after that 
 Act, could, without a violation of the law, prevent 
 the Magistrates of a county from investigating 
 the state of the Prisons within their jurisdiction. 
 The learned Gentleman had contended that, the 
 prerogative of the Crown could not in any case 
 be taken away by an Act of Parliament, without 
 express words contained in the Act for that pur- 
 pose. This was true in some cases, but not in alL 
 The rule held good in certain cases of civil rights, 
 such as debts due to the Crown, which were 
 affected neither by the Bankrupt Laws nor the 
 Statutes of Limitation j but was it ever heldj 
 that, in Acts of general regulation, Acts which 
 went to check abuses, and protect the Rights of 
 the subject, the Prerogative of the Crown could 
 not be taken away except by express words ? The 
 very contrary had been often decided. In the 
 great case of the Master and Fellows of Mag^ 
 dalen College *, in Lord Coke's Reports, the 
 
 * 11 Co. 68 ?0, 71. And in 5 Co. 14, it is laid down 
 that, " all Statutes which are made lo suppress wrong, or to 
 take away fraud, or to prevent the decay of religion, shall bind 
 the King, although he be not named, &c. &c. And A there- 
 fore, it is agreed, in 35th Hen. 6, 60, that the King shall 
 be bound by the Stat. of "West. 2, cap. 5, which makes provi- 
 sions against tortious usurpations, although the King be not 
 named in the Act. So in Lord Berkeley's case, reported by 
 
 VOL. IT. P
 
 210 RIGHT OF MAGISTRATES 
 
 question was, whether the Statute* preventing 
 the alienation of property by Ecclesiastical bodies 
 extended to the Sovereign, as well as to the sub- 
 ject, there being no express words in the Statute 
 that applied to the former. The Judges unani- 
 mously resolved, that the Crown was within the 
 provisions of all Statutes passed for the protec- 
 tion of the subject, and the redress of wrongs ; 
 and that the grant which had been made by Mag- 
 dalen College to Queen Elizabeth was conse- 
 quently void. 
 
 Now he would ask, whether the Statute pass- 
 ed in 1791, was riot a general Statute, passed for 
 the protection of the subject and the redress of 
 wrongs, and whether there was any decision, 
 any dictum of any Judge, any authority of any 
 kind, to be found in any of the books, which as- 
 serted that the King was not bound by Acts of 
 general regulation ? Since the Bill of Rights, it 
 had not been the fashion openly and directly to 
 advocate the doctrine of a dispensing power in 
 the Crown. But what was the effect of his learn- 
 ed Friend's whole argument but to revive that 
 
 Mr. Plowden, it is adjudged, that, if a gift in tail be made 
 to the King, he cannot alien or defraud him in reversion or his 
 issue, but is bound by the Stat. of West. 2, de donis conditio- 
 nalibus, &c. &c." Case of Ecclesiastical Persons, in the High 
 Court of Parliament. See, also, 2 Inst. 359 681, &c. 
 * 13th Eliz. c. 10.
 
 TO VISIT PRISONS. 211 
 
 doctrine? To what purpose did he deny the 
 existence of a dispensing power in the King, if he 
 defended the exercise of it by a Secretary of 
 State? The Act of 1791, said generally that 
 Magistrates should visit all the Prisons within 
 their respective jurisdictions; the Secretary of 
 State forbade them in certain cases to do so, and 
 issued orders to the different Gaolers to refuse 
 them admission ! What was this but dispensing 
 with the laws of the land ? 
 
 But it was contended by his learned Friend, 
 that though the Statute gave the Magistrates a 
 right to visit Prisons, it did not allow of any 
 communication with the Prisoners ! He (Sir S. 
 Romilly) was astonished to hear such arguments. 
 How could the Magistrates perform the duty im- 
 posed on them by Law, the duty of preventing all 
 abuses of authority, but by seeing and commu- 
 nicating with the Prisoners in their dungeons 5 
 Could they learn or repress the misconduct of the 
 Gaoler by making inquiries of the Gaoler himself? 
 Could they ascertain the state of the Gaols, and 
 the treatment of the Prisoners, and report them, as 
 they were bound to do, to the Quarter Sessions ; 
 if they were not to see the Prisoners, if they were 
 not to speak to them, if they were not to inquire 
 after their health, and to examine the dungeons in 
 which they were confined? The language and 
 object of the Act were distinct and clear, and the 
 very reverse of what the Attorney General had
 
 212 RIGHT OP MAGISTRATES TO VISIT PRISONS, 
 
 described them. It was passed on the representa- 
 tion of improper conduct in various Prisons; and 
 with a view of repressing such improper conduct, 
 it directed certain Magistrates, and allowed others, 
 to visit and report the state of the Prisons. But 
 to what purpose, he would again ask, were they 
 to visit the Prisons, unless they saw and commu- 
 nicated with the Prisoners? His learned Friend 
 had said, that, when the Act passed, no such 
 cases as these could have been in the contempla- 
 tion of the Legislature; but that was not the 
 question. It was not what might be supposed to 
 have been contemplated, but what had been done, 
 and what was the actual Law! If any thing 
 wrong had been enacted, it might be amended in 
 a new Act ; but till such new Act had passed, we 
 must abide by the old Law. Sir Samuel Romilly 
 concluded, by repeating, that the Secretary of 
 State had assumed an authority to dispense with 
 an existing Act of Parliament, and that the doc- 
 trines by which the Attorney General had at- 
 tempted to vindicate such a proceeding, would, if 
 generally acted upon, subvert the Constitution, by 
 setting the Crown above the whole Law. 
 The House divided: 
 
 Ayes . . . 56 
 
 Noes ---,-..... 85 
 
 Majority against the Motion - 29> 
 
 o : * ,.'; V> -,
 
 SUSPENSION OF THE HABEAS CORPUS. 213 
 
 SUSPENSION OF THE HABEAS CORPUS. 
 
 June 23d, 1817. 
 
 IJORD Castlereagh moved the first reading of the 
 Bill to continue the Suspension of the Habeas 
 Corpus Act. He was supported by Mr. Leigh 
 Keck, and Mr. Wilberforce, and opposed by Mr. 
 Ponsonby, Mr. Abercromby, and Lord Althorpe. 
 Sir Samuel Romilly rose at the same time with 
 Mr* Courtenay, and having been called on by the 
 Speaker, said, that he hoped he should not de- 
 prive the House long of the pleasure of hearing 
 his learned Friend. " Having taken, however" 
 (he continued), " some part in opposing the former 
 Bill, I am unwilling to give a silent vote upon 
 this. The noble Lord has said that all, who have 
 voted for this measure in the early part of the 
 Session, must necessarily concur in it now; and 
 that even those, who were hostile to it then, 
 ought, in the present circumstances of the country, 
 to give it their support. So far, Sir, am I from 
 coinciding with the noble Lord in this opinion, 
 that, even if I had been friendly to the Bill 
 before, I should be decidedly against it now. It 
 is proved not only to have been wholly inadequate 
 to its object, but to have even aggravated the 
 mischief which it was designed to prevent. But 
 
 p3
 
 214 SUSPENSION or THE HABEAS CORPUS. 
 
 admitting, for the sake of argument, the pro- 
 priety of the former Bill, I consider the present 
 as exposed to objections which did not then exist. 
 Though this most important right of the subject 
 was taken away, it was only for a limited time. 
 Parliament was sitting, and could revise or revoke, 
 or guard against the abuse of, the powers which it 
 had intrusted to the Government. But now it is 
 proposed to suspend this right for an indefinite pe- 
 riod, and during a time when there will be no safe- 
 guard, no parliamentary check or control on the 
 hands of Ministers. It is in their breasts, and their 
 breasts alone, how long we are to be deprived of 
 this right. It will depend on their pleasure and 
 discretion, whether Parliament shall meet in De- 
 cember, February, or March ! Can any thing be 
 more repugnant to the spirit of liberty than to 
 commit such a power a power so unlimited 
 both in duration and extent, into hands of any 
 man or set of men ? So dangerous, so unconsti- 
 tutional do I consider it, that if the Bill is carried, 
 it is my intention to propose, at least, the appoint- 
 ment of some early period, beyond which it shall 
 not be permitted for Ministers to delay the as- 
 sembling of Parliament. 
 
 " Sir, the noble Lord has talked of circum- 
 stances of augmented danger. If such 'be the 
 case, what does it prove, except that the Sus- 
 pension Bill has been not only inefficient, but that 
 it has even fomented the evils it was intended to
 
 SUSPENSION OF THE HABEAS CORPUS. 215 
 
 remove? If new treasons, as the noble Lord in- 
 sinuates, do exist, they must have grown up under 
 the very measure, which was passed, and which he 
 now calls on the House to renew, for the express 
 purpose of crushing- them. He is indebted to his 
 own specifics for the increased danger of the pub- 
 lic disease. And who can be astonished at it? 
 Who ought to have doubted that the course pur- 
 sued by Ministers would furnish food for discon- 
 tent and disaffection ? Before the Suspension of 
 the Habeas Corpus, the grievances complained of 
 by the people might, in some sense, be said to 
 have been imaginary. They might have had 
 some remote notion that every thing was not pre- 
 cisely as it was in the reign of King John. But 
 now it is very different. There is a positive and 
 present evil to complain of ; an evil no less than 
 their liability to the privation of personal liberty, 
 and that without notice and without trial. There 
 is also another evil not less grievous. It is now 
 for the first time avowed, that SPIES are in the 
 reg'ular pay of Government, and are a part of their 
 cruel system of administration; SPIES, who are 
 the promoters and instigators of the crimes which 
 they afterwards denounce ! Are not these things 
 sufficient to excite discontent and disgust through 
 the House and the whole nation ? 
 
 " It is impossible now not to feel that the last 
 Report (of course unintentionally) is in many re- 
 spects a gross exaggeration. Is there a man who 
 
 p4
 
 216 SUSPENSION OF THE HABEAS CORPUS. 
 
 believes, that if the Committee had seen the ex- 
 amination of certain witnesses, it would ever 
 have made so strong a Report? It is a most 
 striking feature in this case, that though these 
 treasonable practices are said to have continued 
 so long, and though the Quarter Sessions and the 
 Assizes have been since held in the disturbed dis- 
 tricts, yet nobody has been brought to trial. 
 Government, indeed, has studiously avoided bring- 
 ing the matter into any train of open examina- 
 tion. Though one hundred and forty persons 
 had been arrested in the neighbourhood of Man- 
 chester alone, and though some of them had been 
 indicted, yet, rather than bring them to trial, Go- 
 vernment has sent down Certioraris, in order 
 to prevent immediate investigation. How is this 
 Ito be accounted for? How is it, that when there is 
 an opportunity of making that example which 
 Ministers of course must consider as the most sa- 
 lutary, yet they do all in their power to put off or 
 prevent so desirable a result ? How is this to be 
 explained, except on the supposition that Ministers 
 feel that investigation may be unfavourable to the 
 object which they have in view ? 
 
 :< The same observation also applies to cases of 
 seditious Libel, about which so much parade was 
 made in the first Report. Not one person has been 
 brought to trial except for an offence which has 
 been created by the very Suspension of the Habeas 
 Corpus Act. Thus the measure has produced the
 
 SUSPENSION OF TftE HABEAS CORPUS. 217 
 
 very mischief which it pretended to remedy. In- 
 deed, looking at the last Report, I find more than 
 one passage corroborative of this position, that 
 the Act has rather increased than diminished the 
 evil so much complained of. The Report in one 
 place states, that * it appears to the Committee 
 that the utmost confidence prevailed among the 
 delegates, as to the ultimate attainment of their 
 objects ; that the successive arrests of several of 
 the principal leaders, though they occasioned a 
 momentary disappointment, did not extinguish 
 the spirit of insurrection, or the hopes of success 
 in the parts of the country above mentioned ; and 
 the utmost impatience was manifested at the de- 
 lays which had taken place in fixing the day for 
 the general rising.' Another passage is still 
 stronger : l Your Committee cannot contemplate 
 what has passed in the country, even since the 
 date of their former Report, without the most se- 
 rious apprehension. During this period the pre- 
 cautionary measures adopted by Parliament have 
 been in force ; many of the most active promoters 
 of public disturbance have been apprehended ; 
 the immediate projects of the disaffected have 
 been discovered and deranged ; yet nothing has 
 deterred them from a steady 'pursuit of their ulti- 
 mate object.' What does this prove, except that 
 no permanent good can be expected from these 
 boasted measures of repression ? It is somewhat 
 curious, that when Government is already armed
 
 218 SUSPENSION OF THE HABEAS CORPUS. 
 
 with the power of transporting any of these de- 
 legates who may be found offending, yet they 
 carefully shun what might be a useful example, 
 and prefer locking them up in obscurity, so that 
 not even their names can escape to warn their 
 fellows, and deter their followers ! And thus their 
 punishment is at once odious and useless. 
 
 " The Hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Leigh 
 Keck) has intimated that this measure is neces- 
 sary for the repression of Luddism. I must depre- 
 cate this idea ; I conjure the House not to enter- 
 tain it for a moment ; for, if it is once to be al- 
 lowed that the suspension of the rights of the 
 whole People is the only effective remedy for Lud- 
 dism, I fear that the consequence will be, that the 
 Suspension Act may last, not for six weeks, or for 
 six months, but for six years, or for sixty. Lud- 
 dism, I fear, is not likely ever to be eradicated by 
 such a proceeding, or within so short a time as 
 some Gentlemen contemplate. 
 
 " The last Report seems to acquit London 
 from the charge of any connexion with the disaf- 
 fected; at least it states, in a very ambiguous man- 
 ner, that the Committee has obtained no specific 
 information of any body of men associated in the 
 metropolis with whom the disaffected in the coun- 
 try appear to be acting in concert. This ought to 
 induce my Hon. Friend (Mr. Wilberforce) to re- 
 gard the spirit, of which he is afraid, as less ex- 
 tensive and powerful than he has supposed it to be.
 
 SUSPENSION OF THE HABEAS CORPUS. 219 
 
 I must confess, too, that after the petitions which 
 have been laid on the table, and amongst others 
 that from the place which my Hon. Friend himself 
 once represented, the town of Hull, numerously 
 and respectably signed as it is ; after the in- 
 stances which have been produced, of great op- 
 pression under the Suspension of the Habeas 
 Corpus Act, and particularly one which has been 
 laid on the table this evening, and which relates 
 to a case of uncommon severity *, I cannot but be 
 surprised how my Hon. Friend, with the know- 
 ledge he possesses of these facts, can still believe 
 that none but the disaffected entertain apprehen- 
 sions on the subject of the Suspension of the Ha- 
 beas Corpus Act. I well know the humane dispo- 
 sition of my Hon. Friend, and am convinced, that 
 he could not have looked into the circumstances 
 and situation of the country with his usual at- 
 tention when he delivered this opinion. The uni- 
 form kindness of my Hon. Friend towards myself 
 will not permit me to suppose that I am ranked 
 by him among the disaffected, though I frankly 
 avow that I am one of those persons who enter- 
 tain most serious apprehensions from the passing 
 of this measure. It is giving to Ministers a power 
 most dangerous to the Constitution, and I care 
 not in whose hands that power may be placed. It 
 
 * The case of Paul Thomas Lemaitre. See Evans's Parlia- 
 mentary Reports, vol. \. p. 1530.
 
 220 SUSPENSION OP THE HABEAS CORPUS. 
 
 is one of the melancholy signs of the times, that 
 while day after day new encroachments are 
 making on public liberty, the answer to every 
 complaint is, that the power which is given will be 
 placed in gentle hands ! Was there ever any de- 
 spotic government which did not claim the right 
 of exercising power on this ground ? It is the 
 interest of every Government to govern well; 
 and when even the most despotic enforce mis- 
 chievous measures, it often proceeds rather from 
 ignorance or want of judgment than wicked inten- 
 tion. Sir, the only real security for the governed 
 is that responsibility of the Government which it 
 is the object of this measure to remove. 
 
 " The private character of the noble Lord on 
 whom these powers will devolve, is, 1 am sen- 
 sible, meritorious and praiseworthy ; but I am not 
 on that account bound to entertain respect for him 
 as a public man. I cannot reconcile myself to so 
 light a way of speaking of the Constitution as that 
 which makes the suspension of its most valuable 
 privileges a matter of indifference, because the ar- 
 bitrary authority which must be the consequence 
 of that suspension, will be vested in gentle hands. 
 For my own part, however, I do not perceive 
 such particular cause for satisfaction on this sub- 
 ject. I cannot so readily join in the favourable 
 opinion which has been expressed of those who 
 are to exercise this monstrous power. I cannot 
 forget that it is placed in the hands of men who
 
 SUSPENSION OP THE HABEAS CORPUS. 221 
 
 bave so recently violated and vindicated the viola- 
 tion of an express Act of Parliament. 
 
 " Another objection, and by no means a 
 slight one, to this Bill is, that it extends to Scot- 
 land, though the Report affords no ground for that 
 extension. Is it possible to point out a single sen- 
 tence in the Report which can afford a pretext for 
 depriving Scotland of the protection of the Act 
 against ' wrongous imprisonment?' I can state 
 that the disposition of the people of Scotland is 
 most orderly and loyal ; I can do this, not upon 
 vague and uncertain evidence, but upon the best 
 authority. The address lately voted by the Ge- 
 neral Assembly of the Church of Scotland to the 
 Prince Regent, by a body of the Clergy, who do 
 not, as is unfortunately too often the case in Eng- 
 land, live apart from their charge, but who are 
 always resident in their respective parishes, and 
 intimately acquainted with the sentiments and 
 situations of their flocks, that Address describes 
 the people as enduring the distress and difficulties 
 they have to encounter with the greatest firmness, 
 tranquillity, and patience; and ( congratulates His 
 Royal Highness, that neither privations nor the 
 corrupting influence of inflammatory language 
 employed by seditious persons, have been able to 
 seduce the people from their principles of loyalty 
 and allegiance.' Why then are the people of 
 Scotland threatened with the suspension of this 
 Act, which is justly regarded as the Magna 
 Charta of that country ?
 
 222 SUSPENSION OP THE HABEAS CORPUS. 
 
 " The noble Lord talks of the great respon- 
 sibility under which Ministers bring forward this 
 measure. Sir, the Ministers will incur no re- 
 sponsibility, and they know that they will incur 
 none. They are quite sure that this House, 
 whenever they ask for it, will pass a Bill of In- 
 demnity. The same House, which has refused 
 even to require the names of the persons now 
 immured tinder this Bill, will, if the Ministers 
 wish it, give them a Bill of Indemnity by an- 
 ticipation for what they may hereafter do, as well 
 as for what they have already done. My Hon. 
 Friend seems to make very light of the evils which 
 may be produced by the exercise of these extraor- 
 dinary powers, as if it is little, that individuals 
 may be carried off from their homes, and im- 
 prisoned in dungeons, without any of their friends 
 knowing where they are to be found. My Hon. 
 Friend supposes that such transactions cannot 
 take place without being soon inquired into, and 
 that any act of oppression must speedily come to 
 the knowledge of the public. This would indeed 
 be true, with individuals of distinction like him- 
 self, or with persons of any consequence; but 
 who will inquire after unfortunate journeymen 
 shoemakers or weavers? The obscurity of these 
 persons renders them liable to the greatest oppres- 
 sion. I know not whether my Hon. Friend was 
 in the House when a petition was presented from 
 an individual who had been detained seven years 
 
 3
 
 SUSPENSION OP THE HABEAS CORPUS. 223 
 
 in close custody *. There are many such cases, 
 and the parties, though no charge has been 
 brought against them, have been ultimately shut 
 out from all means of obtaining redress. The 
 noble Lord has said that Ministers have no inte- 
 rest in possessing themselves of this extraordi- 
 nary power. On this point the public are not 
 exactly of the same opinion as his Lordship. How 
 differently has the Session passed over from what it 
 would have done, had it not been for the introduc- 
 tion of these arbitrary measures! To the alarm 
 which has been raised in the country, it is gene- 
 rally believed, that the noble Lord and his col- 
 leagues are in some degree obliged for the situ- 
 ations which they have been allowed to retain. 
 For what questions of economy or reduction of ex- 
 penditure could be attended to, when measures of 
 magnitude like the present, were forced upon Par- 
 liament ? 
 
 * f Sir, I cannot look without dismay upon the 
 situation of the country. The prospect on every side 
 is most melancholy. There are two great parties 
 strongly opposed to each other ; the Ministers and 
 their friends, who are incessant in their endeavours 
 to extend the power of the Crown, on the one 
 side; and on the other, those who profess to be 
 of no party, but who are proceeding not less stea- 
 dily and systematically to the objects which they 
 
 * Paul Thomas Lemaitre.
 
 224 SUSPENSION OF THE HABEAS CORPUS. 
 
 have in view. The system of the one is promoted 
 by the conduct of the other. The misrepresenta- 
 tions and artifices, by which it is attempted on the 
 part of a few demagogues to destroy all confi- 
 dence of the People in public men, are confirmed, 
 and receive an authority which they would other- 
 wise want, from the recriminations, in which Mi- 
 nisters have been so long in the habit of indulg- 
 ing against their predecessors. Instead of de- 
 fending themselves,, they only tell us that others 
 are equally criminal, instead of vindicating the 
 policy and justice of their own measures, they 
 exert themsel\ 7 es on all occasions, to find out that 
 something as bad has been done by their oppo- 
 nents, inculcating a belief, that all who inter- 
 fere in the public councils are solely actuated by a 
 desire of possessing or retaining power. The con- 
 sequence is, that, the people are left without any 
 persons to look up to except temporary adven- 
 turers. To such an extent, by this extraordinary 
 co-operation of opposite parties, has this evil 
 reached, that, were the country destined to un- 
 dergo any great political convulsion, it is to be 
 feared, that the dangerous powers to which such 
 a crisis always gives birth, would be wielded by 
 men the most dangerous and desperate, whom 
 nothing but so extraordinary a state of things 
 could ever raise into importance. In the mean 
 time each of these parties is strengthening the 
 other's hands. Th popular faction, by acts of
 
 SUSPENSION OP THE HABEAS CORPUS. 225 
 
 violence is affording a pretext to the Ministers to 
 destroy or to suspend all that is most valuable and 
 sacred in- the Constitution, while Ministers, by 
 their arbitrary measures, provoke the People to 
 acts of violence and insurrection. How these 
 things will end, what will be the result of that 
 crisis, which each party seems so desirous to 
 hasten, I will not pretend to say ;-^-but should it 
 come, (which God avert !) this is at least certain, 
 that it will bring with it evils and calamities, 
 which no honest mind can contemplate without 
 horror. For this state of things, should it ever 
 unhappily occur, for these multiplied and aggra- 
 vated calamities, the noble Lord opposite (to 
 adopt an expression of his own), the noble Lord 
 and his colleagues will be chiefly answerable in 
 the eyes both of God and man! 
 The House divided : 
 
 Ayes - - - - 276 
 
 Noes - . - - - 111 
 
 Majority - - - 165 
 
 VOL. n.
 
 226 LORD SIDMOUTH'S CIRCULAR LETTER. 
 
 June 25tfi, 1817. 
 
 SIR Samuel Romilly rose to make his promised 
 Motion on the subject of Lord Sidmouth's Circu- 
 lar, and spoke in substance as follows: 
 
 * The following is a copy of LORD SIDMOUTH'S LETTER. 
 " Whitehall, IJth March 1817- 
 
 " My Lord,- As it is of the greatest importance to prevent, 
 as far as possible, the circulation of blasphemous and seditious 
 pamphlets and writings, of which for a considerable time past 
 great numbers have been sold and distributed throughout the 
 country ; I have thought it my duty to consult the Law servants 
 of the Crown, whether an individual found selling or in any way 
 publishing such Pamphlets or Writings might be brought imme- 
 diately before a Justice of the Peace, under a warrant issued for 
 the purpose, to answer for his conduct. The Law Officers having 
 accordingly taken this matter into their consideration, have noti- 
 fied to me their opinion, that, a Justice of the Peace may issue a 
 warrant to apprehend a person, charged before him on oath with 
 the publication of libels of the nature in question, and compel 
 him to give bail to answer the charge. Under these circum- 
 stances, I beg leave to call your Lordship's attention very parti- 
 cularly to the subject ; and I have to request, that, if your Lord- 
 hip should not propose to attend in person at the next General 
 Quarter Sessions of the Peace, to be holden in and for the County 
 under your Lordship's charge, you would make known to the 
 Chairman of such Sessions the substance of this communication,
 
 LORD SIDMOUTH'S CIRCULAR LETTER. 227 
 
 " Mr. Speaker, I shall offer no apology to 
 this House for bringing under its notice the Cir- 
 cular Letter which has been addressed by the Se- 
 cretary of State to the Lords Lieutenants of 
 Counties in England and Wales. If I owe any 
 apology, it is for having deferred the subject to so 
 late a period of the Session. This delay has not 
 
 in order that he may recommend to the several Magistrates to 
 act thereupon, in all cases where any person shall be found of- 
 fending against the law in the manner above mentioned. I beg 
 leave to add, that persons vending pamphlets or other publica- 
 tions, in the manner alluded to, should be considered as coming 
 under the provisions of the Hawkers' and Pedlars' Act, and be 
 dealt with accordingly, unless they show that they are furnished 
 with a license as required by the said Act. I have the honour 
 to be, &c. &c. 
 
 " SlDMOUTH." 
 
 OPINION of the Law Officers "of the Crown referred to in the 
 said Circular Letter. 
 
 " We are of opinion, that a Warrant may be issued to appre- 
 hend a party charged on oath for publishing a Libel, either by the 
 Secretary of State, a Judge, or a Justice of the Peace. 
 
 " With respect to the Secretary of State, in the case of En- 
 tick v. Carrington, as reported by Mr. Hargrave, though the 
 Court were of opinion that the Warrants, which were then the 
 subject of discussion, were illegal, yet Lord Camden declared, and 
 "m which he stated the other Judges agreed with him, that they 
 were bound to adhere to the determination of the Queen v. 
 Derby, and the King v. Earbury; in both which Cases it had been 
 holden, that it was competent to the Secretary of State to issue a 
 Warrant for the apprehension of a person charged with a scandal- 
 ous and seditious Libel ; and that they, the Judges, had no right 
 
 to overturn those decisions. 
 
 " With 
 a 2
 
 228 LORD SIDMOUTH'S CIRCULAR LETTBR. 
 
 proceeded from any insensibility, on my part, to 
 the magnitude of the question ; on the contrary, 
 it is the strong sense which I entertain of its im- 
 portance, which has made me hesitate for a mo- 
 ment on the subject. Connected, as the decision 
 of this question so intimately is, with the due 
 administration of justice, the liberty of the press, 
 and the character of the Legislature it is with 
 
 " With respect to the power of a Judge to issue such War- 
 rant, it appears to us, that at all events, under the Stat. of the 
 48 Geo. III. ch. 58, a Judge has such a power, upon an affidavit 
 being made in pursuance of that Act : a Judge would probably 
 expect that it should appear to be the intention of the Attorney 
 General to file an information against the person charged. 
 
 " With respect to a Justice of the Peace, the decision of the 
 Court of Common Pleas, in the case of Mr. Wilkes's Libel, only 
 amounts to this, that Libel is not such an actual breach of the peace 
 as to deprive a Member of Parliament of his privilege of Parlia- 
 ment; or to warrant the demanding sureties of the peace from the 
 Defendant; but there is no decision or opinion, that a Justice of the 
 Peace might not apprehend any person not so privileged, and de- 
 mand bail to be given to answer the charge. It has certainly 
 been the opinion of one of our most learned predecessors, that 
 such Warrants may be issued and acted upon by Justices of the 
 Peace, as appears by the cases of Thomas Spence and Alexander 
 Hogg, in the year 1801. We agree in that opinion, and there- 
 fore think that a Justice of the Peace may issue a Warrant to 
 apprehend a person, charged by information on oath, with the 
 publication of a scandalous and seditious Libel, and to compel 
 him to give bail to answer such charge. 
 
 " Lincoln's Inn, W. GARKOW. 
 
 February 18i;. S. SHBPHBRD."
 
 LORD SIDMOUTH'S CIRCULAR LETTER, 229 
 
 some apprehension that I bring it even now be- 
 fore the House. I know that these are not times 
 at all favourable for agitating Constitutional ques- 
 tions : I know the address with which those who 
 are hostile to the rights of the people often con- 
 trive, by majorities of this House, to convert any 
 attempt to vindicate those rights into the means 
 of victory over them. But, whatever may be the 
 result, however vain any effort of mine to induce 
 Ministers to retrace their steps, however they 
 and their supporters may choose to elude the 
 clearest conclusions of Law, or frustrate the 
 strongest deductions of fact, I cannot suffer a 
 measure of such dangerous consequence as this 
 Circular Letter, to pass unnoticed. No use, which 
 can be made by Ministers of any decision to which 
 the House may come on this night, can, hi my 
 opinion, be attended with greater mischief than 
 that such a manifesto should go forth unques- 
 tioned, that such a precedent of the new law 
 and practice, which is intended to be introduced, 
 should be established, without one Member of the 
 House of Commons, the constitutional guardians 
 of the liberties of the people, raising up his voice 
 against it. 
 
 " The Letter, to which I wish to call the at- 
 tention of the House, is addressed by the Secre- 
 tary of State for the Home Department to the 
 Lords Lieutenants of England and Wales, and 
 requests them to communicate to the Magistrates 
 
 Q*
 
 230 LORD SIDMOUTH'S CIRCULAR LETTER. 
 
 of their respective Counties the opinion of the 
 Attorney and Solicitor General on the law of li- 
 bels, and the direction of the Government as to 
 the conduct of the Magistrates in all such cases. 
 They are there told that they have the power by 
 law to arrest and hold to bail all persons charged 
 with the offence of libel, and are recommended to 
 exercise this right upon all occasions. Sir, to 
 the law as stated in this Letter, I cannot accede. 
 The question, however, appears to rne to be of 
 even greater importance in a constitutional, than 
 in a legal, point of view. Supposing the law to 
 be quite clear, supposing that there could exist 
 no doubt or difficulty whatever upon the subject, 
 still I would say, that the circumstance of a Mi- 
 nister of the Crown thus interfering with its exe- 
 cution, is contrary to the principles of the Consti- 
 tution, and inconsistent with the pure administra- 
 tion of justice. But what if the law, instead of 
 being clear, is, in fact, extremely doubtful ? What, 
 if the Secretary of State has represented that as 
 law, for which no warrant or authority can be ad- 
 duced? 
 
 (t 1 will, however, for the sake of argument, 
 in the first place, suppose that Magistrates have 
 such a discretion as the Letter ascribes to them, 
 that they possess the power of committing, or 
 holding to bail for seditious and blasphemous 
 libels. What more dangerous authority, even 
 then, can be assumed by a servant of the Crown,
 
 LORD SIDMOUTH'S CIRCULAR LETTER. 231 
 
 than to interfere with this discretion, and to dic- 
 tate to those possessing it, the manner in which it 
 shall be exercised? The law is supposed to have 
 said, that it shall be for the Magistrate, judging 
 of all the circumstances of each particular case, 
 to determine, whether he will, before indictment, 
 require persons charged with the offence of libel, 
 to find bail or be committed to prison ; but the 
 Minister recommends it to him to hold to bail or 
 commit, in all cases and under all circumstances. 
 The law allows a discretion to the Magistrate to be 
 exercised by him, according to his view and know- 
 ledge of the particular case; but the Secretary of 
 State arrogating that discretion to himself, proceeds 
 to exercise it blindly, at all hazards, in defiance 
 of circumstances, in contempt of all considera- 
 tions of greater or less criminality, of inadvertence, 
 precipitancy, or ignorance, with which the several 
 cases may be attended. It is common for Judges 
 to offer recommendations to Grand Juries at the 
 Assizes, to call their attention to new or unno- 
 ticed Acts of Parliament,, nor am I aware of any 
 objection to the practice : but who ever before 
 heard of the Ministers of the Crown interfering 
 with the administration of justice, and transfer- 
 ring to themselves the exercise of that discretion 
 which is vested in the hands of the Magistracy? 
 In many cases the law gives to the judicial officer 
 a discretionary power as to the degree of punish- 
 ment which shall be inflicted upon offenders; he 
 
 Q4
 
 232 LORD SIDMOUTH'S CIRCULAR LETTER. 
 
 may visit the same offence with greater or less ri- 
 gour according to the circumstances under which 
 it may have been committed. What would be 
 said of any Minister of the Crown who took upon 
 himself to require the Magistrate, in every case, 
 to inflict the severest punishment Which the law 
 had allowed? And yet the interference with ju- 
 dicial discretion is as unjustifiable in the one in- 
 stance as in the other. 
 
 " This unprecedented and unconstitutional 
 recommendation, moreover, is given with respect 
 to a discretion which ought, even where it avow- 
 edly exists^ to be exercised but very rarely and 
 upon very extraordinary occasions. Since the 
 Act of 1808*, it is clear, that the Judges of 
 the King's Bench have authority to commit, or 
 hold to bail, any persons against whom an inform- 
 ation for libel may have been filed. But so sel- 
 dom has it been thought expedient to resort to 
 this power, that when, in the year 1811, a ques- 
 tion respecting ex officio informations was agitated 
 in this House, Sir Vicary Gibbs, who was then 
 Attorney General, declared, that, of all the per- 
 sons against whom informations had been filed in 
 the course of the three years which had elapsed 
 since the Act first passed (and they were nume- 
 rous, no fewer, it was said, than forty), only 
 
 * 48 Geo. III. ch. 58.
 
 LOKD KIDMOUTH'S CIRCULAR LETTER. 233 
 
 (me had been required to give bail. That, too, 
 was a case of an aggravated nature ; the Defend- 
 ant having had the boldness, after an information 
 filed against him, to publish a new edition of the 
 obnoxious work. Yet this discretion, which was 
 deemed necessary to be resorted to, but in one 
 solitary instance, by the Attorney General, is 
 now, it seems, to be exercised by every Magistrate 
 in all cases whatever ! 
 
 " In 1793, and the succeeding years, when the 
 present Lord Chancellor was Attorney General, 
 notwithstanding the numerous prosecutions for 
 libels, which were instituted by him in every part 
 of the kingdom, though Paine's Rights of Man, 
 Barlow's attack on the privileged orders, and 
 other publications supposed to be most dangerous, 
 were amongst them, in no one instance was any 
 Defendant held to bail. No attempt of the kind 
 was even made. This fact alone, in my opinion, 
 goes a great way to prove that the right assumed 
 does not by law exist in the Magistrates; but every 
 one must admit, that it proves, if such a right 
 does exist, that it is only in very rare and extra- 
 ordinary instances that it ought to be called into 
 action. The Executive Government, however, 
 presuming to interpose with the Magistrates in 
 their mode of administering justice, tells them, 
 that it must be constantly and in all cases acted 
 upon. What should we say of any individual 
 Magistrate, who had presumed spontaneously to
 
 234 LORD SIDMOUTH'S CIRCULAR LETTER. 
 
 lay down for himself this rule which Lord Sid- 
 mouth has prescribed for the guidance of all Ma- 
 gistrates, who had declared beforehand, that he 
 would, in all instances, and without regard to the 
 facts or circumstances of particular cases, exercise 
 this power, and commit in absence of bail every 
 person who might be brought before him on charge 
 of Libel? What should we say of a Magistrate 
 who had so far forgotten his duty ? Should we not 
 think him unworthy of his office, and that the Lord 
 Chancellor had properly exercised the discretion 
 which the Constitution vested in him, by striking 
 out his name from the Commission of the Peace ? 
 And yet this, which no Magistrate can justly do, 
 and which, if he was to do, the Lord Chancellor 
 would be bound to punish, the Secretary of State 
 presumes to recommend to all Magistrates ! 
 Upon a supposition, therefore, that the law is 
 such as it has been represented by the noble Secre- 
 tary, still I will contend, that he has violated the 
 first principles of the Constitution, and trampled 
 upon the most sacred rules of judicial administra- 
 tion, by thus giving directions for its indiscriminate 
 exercise and application. 
 
 " But what, as I have observed before, what 
 if the existence of this law be extremely doubt- 
 ful ? And this the Secretary of State seems him- 
 self to admit by the whole tenour of his Letter and 
 conduct, by his application to the Law Officers 
 of the Crown, and by the necessity which he felt of
 
 LORD SIDMOUTH S CIRCULAR LETTER. 235 
 
 promulgating their opinion at all the Quarter Ses- 
 sions of the kingdom. If the law on this subject 
 was so clear as some would now contend, how shall 
 we account for the general ignorance which seem- 
 ed to prevail, as to its existence? The Magis- 
 trates knew nothing, the Secretary of State even 
 hesitated, about it, and the Attorney and So- 
 litor General, to whom his Lordship thought it 
 expedient to apply for a solution of his doubts, 
 have been able to offer no one single authority of 
 any weight in confirmation of their opinions. 
 They tell us indeed, that the decision of the 
 Court of Common Pleas in the case of Mr. Wilkes 
 is not a decision against this power, and that the 
 opinion of one of their most learned predecessors 
 is in favour of it! But is this enough? Is this 
 the way in which the Law of the Land is in 
 doubtful cases to be expounded? Is the unsup- 
 ported opinion of an Attorney and Solicitor Ge- 
 neral to sanction the exercise of so unusual and 
 dangerous a power? If the Crown can by its 
 officers do so, if it can thus declare what is law, 
 the Crown is in itself equal to the whole Legisla- 
 ture of King, Lords, and Commons. 
 
 " By the Constitution of this country there are 
 only two modes in which the law can, in doubtful 
 matters, be established. The one is by a declara- 
 tory act of the Legislature ; the other is by the 
 regular and solemn decisions of the Judges. It 
 has been at all times thought of the utmost im-
 
 2. r 56 LORD SIDMOUTin* CIRCULAR LETTER. 
 
 portance to prevent the law from being- declared 
 m any other way. A power to declare the law, 
 would in many cases amount to a power to make 
 the law, and would render the Crown inde- 
 pendent of the other branches of the Legislature. 
 Those of our Princes, who have been most anx- 
 ious to extend their prerogative, seem to have 
 been well aware of the advantage of such a power. 
 Yet even they endeavoured to obtain for the law, 
 which they declared, the sanction of the Judges, 
 however extra-judicial ly and informally given. It 
 has been only in very late times, and I believe 
 under the present Secretary of State alone, that 
 the opinions of Attorneys and Solicitors General 
 have been resorted to for the purpose of giving 
 countenance to the law which the Government 
 wished to promulgate. Two years ago, when the 
 Ministers of the Crown thought proper to keep 
 the Militia embodied after the conclusion of the 
 war, and when all the causes, which could by 
 law justify the embodying or continuance of them 
 embodied, had ceased, the same Secretary of 
 State had recourse to the Law Officers of the 
 Crown, and upon their authority pronounced to 
 the world the legality of the measures which he 
 and his colleagues were desirous to pursue. Even 
 under the Stuarts this would not have been to- 
 lerated! Even Noy, the Attorney General of 
 Charles the First, did not venture the lengths
 
 LORD SIDMOCTH'S CIRCULAR LETTBR. 237 
 
 which have been attempted in the present day. 
 That unhappy man (who, from being an able and 
 zealous assertor of the people's rights, was induced, 
 by his love of flattery and power, to degrade him- 
 self into the mean instrument of tyranny and op- 
 pression) is said to have first devised the scheme 
 of Ship-money. To enable his Royal Master to 
 dispense with Parliaments, he recommended that 
 expedient for levying taxes without their autho- 
 rity. The necessity of the State must be sup- 
 plied, and who but the King was to be the judge 
 of that necessity? Thus argued the Attorney 
 General of that arbitrary reign ; but neither he 
 nor his employers thought of promulgating Aw opi- 
 nion as declaratory of the Law of England. They 
 felt that a higher authority was required to stamp 
 their proceedings with the seal of right. They ac- 
 cordingly appealed to the Judges, who were as- 
 sembled in the Star Chamber, and whose opi- 
 nions were taken in writing, and then enrolled in 
 all the Courts of Westminster. Do the Gentle- 
 men on the other side imagine, that I am attempt- 
 ing to palliate these things? That, because I 
 have represented the contrast which exists be- 
 tween the present case and that of Ship-money, to 
 be in favour of the latter, I am recommending 
 the course which was pursued on that occasion? 
 No ; the whole proceeding was as illegal as it 
 was unconstitutional. The law indeed was not
 
 238 LORD SIDMOUTH'S CIRCULAR LETTER. 
 
 declared on the opinions of the Law Officers of 
 the Crown, but on the opinions of the Judges. 
 Still it was on their extra-judicial opinions, on 
 opinions given at the solicitation of the Crown, 
 and formed without the advantage of hearing the 
 case argued, and being furnished with the autho- 
 rities and reasons which might be produced by 
 those who had an interest to dispute the law. 
 Fortunately for this country, the question was at 
 length brought to issue. A man was found bold 
 enough to dispute the law which had been thus 
 published ; a man, to whom I will not be deter- 
 red from giving due honour by the prevailing fa- 
 shion of undervaluing his conduct and deriding his 
 merits, by the sycophancy and servility of those, 
 who would pay their court to power by vilifying 
 the founders of national liberty and happiness, and 
 by depreciating the brightest ornaments of- human 
 nature. The prevention of that arbitrary and un- 
 just measure was entirely owing to the firmness 
 and the honesty of JOHN HAMPDEN. But when 
 this immortal patriot brought the case distinctly 
 before the Judges, eight out of twelve were so far 
 corrupted as to adhere to their former opinions ; 
 and Crooke and Hutton (names that I am proud 
 to mention with a distinction so honourable) 
 urged the strongest arguments against their deci- 
 sion in vain. The majority felt a sort of interest, 
 a party bias, an esprit de corps, which led 
 
 2
 
 LORD SIDMOUTH'S CIRCULAR LETTER. 239 
 
 them to give that iniquitous and disastrous de- 
 cision *. 
 
 " In the reign of Charles the Second, the 
 Judges were again called upon to give an extra- 
 judicial opinion, on the subject of Libels, and 
 they accordingly signed a declaration, that, ' to 
 
 * The Judges were : 
 
 For Mr. HAMPDESC. For the CROWH. 
 
 Sir George Crooke. Sir John Finch. 
 
 Sir Richard Hutton. Sir John Brampston. 
 
 Sir John Denharn. Sir Francis Crawley. 
 
 Sir Humphrey Davenport. Sir Francis Weston. 
 
 Sir Robert Berkeley. 
 
 Sir George Vernon. 
 
 Sir Thomas Trevor. 
 
 Sir William Jones. 
 
 " These sworn Judges of the Law (says Lord Clarendon) 
 adjudged Ship-money to be a right on such grounds and rea- 
 ons as every stander-by was able to swear was not law." 
 " When men saw in a Court of Law (that law, that gave them 
 title to, and possession of, all that they had) reasons of State 
 urged as elements of Law, Judges as sharp-sighted as Secre- 
 taries of State, and in the mysteries of State j Judgment of Law 
 grounded on matter of fact, of which there was neither inquiry 
 nor proof; and no reason given for the payment of the thirty 
 shillings in question, but what included the estates of all the 
 standers-by, they had no reason to hope that the doctrine, or the 
 promoters of it, would be contained within any bounds, &c." 
 " And here the damage and mischief cannot be expressed, that 
 the Crown and State sustained by the deserved reproach and 
 infamy that attended the Judges, by being made use of in this and 
 like acts of power," &c. Clarendon, Book I.
 
 240 LORD'S SJDMOUTH'S CIRCULAR LETTER. 
 
 print any news-books or pamphlets of news what- 
 soever was illegal, and that it was a manifest in- 
 tent to a breach of the peace, and might be pro- 
 ceeded against by Law.' It is in these words that 
 Lord Chief Justice Scroggs, a person every way 
 worthy to be the promulgator of such doctrines; 
 states the opinion of the Judges in the case of 
 Henry Carr *. What is the difference between 
 that case and the present, except that the autho- 
 rity for the exposition of the Law was so much 
 higher in the former than in the latter ? Strong 
 as are the objections which must ever exist against 
 the opinions of Judges thus extra-judicially and 
 informally given ; I still consider them, in every 
 point of view, as preferable to the opinion of an 
 Attorney and Solicitor General. It is not only 
 because they must be supposed to be more learn- 
 ed and more experienced, but because they must 
 be expected to have more honesty. The Judges 
 are sworn to administer justice impartially be- 
 tween the King and his subjects; the Attorney 
 
 * The conduct of Scroggs on this occasion formed one of the 
 articles of impeachment against htm, in 1680-1 The pro- 
 ceeding on the part of himself and his brother Judges, " in con- 
 demning not only what had been written, without hearing the 
 parties, but also what might for the future be written" was stig- 
 matized by the House of Commons as contrary to all justice, as 
 an open invasion of the right of the subject, and an assumption 
 to themselves of a legislative power and authority. Pa rlia rrtfM- 
 lary History, vol. w. p. 1275.
 
 LORD SIDMOUTH'S CIRCULAR LETTER. 241 
 
 and Solicitor General take no such oaths. They 
 are sworn only to serve the Crown ; they hold no 
 judicial office ; they are Advocates, dependent on 
 the Crown, not only for their present offices, but for 
 their future promotion. Sir Henry Spelman has 
 described an Attorney General in these words, 
 ' Attornatus Regis est, qui causas Regis forenses 
 non solum promovet, sed ex more Advocati fortis- 
 sime tuetur? I would not be understood as insi- 
 
 * 
 
 nuating any thing against the present Attorney or 
 Solicitor General. I only argue on the general 
 principle, when I say, that in questions respect- 
 ing the liberty of the Press and the rights of 
 the People, they are the very worst authorities 
 that can be adduced. It has been truly said 
 by the Biographer of Bacon, that the offices of 
 Attorney and Solicitor General are rocks on 
 which many aspiring lawyers have made ship- 
 wreck of their virtue. More striking instances 
 cannot be adduced than those of Sir Edward 
 Coke, and Sir Francis Bacon himself, the one, 
 the great oracle of the profession of law, the 
 other, an ornament not only of his country, but of 
 the age in which he lived. Never- were there 
 scenes of baser servility and more cruel persecu- 
 tion, than during the periods in which these great 
 men filled the office of Attorney General ; though 
 one of them (Sir E. Coke) afterwards displayed 
 great judicial virtues, and was the only one of the 
 Judges, who, having declined giving an extra- 
 VOL. n. R
 
 242 LOUD SIDMOUTH'S CIRCULAR LKTTER. 
 
 judicial opinion in the case of Commendams, re- 
 fused to make submission to the Privy Council on 
 his knees. Such were the men who were found 
 incapable of resisting the allurements of their 
 office. Yet Attorneys and Solicitors General are 
 now the oracles called upon to resolve every diffi- 
 culty and doubt, and, by their sole authority, to 
 make or unmake the law. 
 
 " I have already observed, and again repeat, 
 that I mean to insinuate nothing against the abili- 
 ties or the characters of my hon. and learned 
 Friends opposite. I believe that they are both well 
 deserving of the favour which the Crown has been 
 advised to confer on them. The recent appoint- 
 ment of my learned Friend, the Solicitor General 
 in particular, is not less honourable to the Govern- 
 ment than to himself, because he has been pro- 
 moted not on account of his political principles, 
 but from a conviction of his merits. When, there- 
 fore, I protest against the authority of the At- 
 torney or Solicitor General in cases like the pre- 
 sent, it is not from any feeling of objection to the 
 particular individuals who now fill those offices. 
 It is of the surrender of such a privilege into the 
 hands of persons so situated, whoever they may 
 be, that I feel it to be my duty to complain. Can 
 the House believe it either safe or constitutional to 
 allow doubts on the law, that affect the liberty of 
 the subject, to be solved by His Majesty's lawyers? 
 In looking back to former times, I only find ex-
 
 
 LORD SIDMOUTH'S CIRCULAR LETTER. 243 
 
 amples to show the danger of such a practice. I 
 will mention one, which occurred in the reign of 
 Charles the Second, in the year, when Russell 
 and Sydney were judicially murdered, when the 
 Law and Constitution were trampled under the 
 feet of arbitrary power, and the forms of Justice 
 were made to cover the greatest enormities. The 
 Earl of Middleton, then Secretary of State, and 
 not more famous than some of his successors for 
 any scrupulous feeling, either as to his objects or 
 the means of attaining them, wrote to the Lord 
 Advocate of Scotland to ask, whether the Judges 
 could receive the depositions of witnesses against 
 State Prisoners, before their trials came on. The 
 Lord Advocate of that day, who mentions the 
 circumstance himself, was Sir George Mackenzie, 
 a man celebrated for the perversion of great ta- 
 lents and legal knowledge. Such a man could not 
 but have been sensible how contrary the opinion re- 
 quired of him was to the law ; nevertheless, he 
 answered, that, though the taking depositions 
 might, in ordinary circumstances, prejudice the 
 Judges; here, they could not be prejudiced! 
 
 " Having said thus much with respect to 
 the Constitutional part of the question, involved 
 in this Circular, I will now state to the House the 
 course which I mean to pursue. I shall first pro- 
 pose, ' That an humble address be presented to 
 His Royal Highness the Prince Regent, that he will 
 be graciously pleased to give directions that there
 
 244 LORD SIDMOUTH'S CIRCULAR LETTER. 
 
 be laid before this House a Copy of the Case upon 
 which the opinion of the Attorney and Solicitor 
 General of the date of the 24th of February last 
 was taken.' This Motion I shall follow up by two 
 Resolutions ; 1st, l That it is highly prejudicial to 
 the due administration of justice, fora Minister of 
 the Crown to interfere with the Magistrates of the 
 Country, in cases in which a discretion is supposed 
 to be by Law vested in them, by recommending or 
 suggesting to them how that discretion shall be 
 exercised.' 2dly, * That it tends to the subversion 
 of justice, and is a dangerous extension of the pre- 
 rogative, for a Minister of the Crown to take upon 
 himself to declare in his official character to the 
 Magistracy what he conceives to be the law of the 
 land, and that such an exercise of authority is the 
 more alarming, when the law so declared deeply 
 affects the security of the subject and the liberty 
 of the press, and is promulgated on no better au- 
 thority than the opinions of the Law Officers of 
 the Crown.' 
 
 " I will now advert to the legal opinion 'of the 
 Attorney and Solicitor General, on which the Cir- 
 cular of the noble Secretary is founded. After the 
 maturest deliberation and inquiry, I feel myself 
 bound to declare, that I do not think it correct or 
 consistent with the principles of law. In my opi- 
 nion the Magistrates have no such authority as is 
 stated to belong to them. I mean, however, to 
 propose no resolution on this subject. There may
 
 LORD SIDMOUTH'S CIRCULAR LETTER. 245 
 
 be some doubt, and I do not think, that it be- 
 comes this, or the other House, nor both toge- 
 ther, to declare what the law is. In such a case 
 all the branches of the Legislature must concur. 
 But if neither House of Parliament separately nor 
 both together, without the sanction of the Crown, 
 can settle this point, what is to be thought of an 
 executive Minister who has taken upon himself to 
 do so ? Let the House consider the consequences 
 which may attend the exercise of this authority so 
 unconstitutionally declared to belong to the Ma- 
 gistrates. They will have the power of commit- 
 ting or holding to bail, before indictment found 
 or information filed, every man who shall be 
 charged on oath, at the instance of any informer, 
 with having published a blasphemous or seditious 
 libel. It is well known, too, that blasphemous 
 or seditious words are equally punishable with 
 writings of that character ; that the uttering of 
 such expressions is considered as equivalent to 
 publication ; so that any man who publishes what 
 another may think a blasphemous or seditious 
 libel, or utters a blasphemous or seditious expres- 
 sion, may be sent to prison or held to bail, on the 
 oath of any informer, however infamous, and by 
 the command of any Magistrate, however preju- 
 diced or indiscreet! The tyranny of the reign of 
 Charles the Second could not have been greater 
 than this. It is folly to talk any longer of the 
 freedom of the press. No paper can in future 
 
 R 3 
 

 
 246 LORD SIDMOUTH'S CIRCULAR LETTER. 
 
 criticise the measures of Ministers, or render itself, 
 in any way, obnoxious to a busy Magistrate, 
 without exposing its author to the danger of im- 
 prisonment or expense without trial. The Magis- 
 trate is not even bound to examine the publication 
 which may be declared a libel. The oath of the 
 informer is a sufficient ground for him to act 
 upon. But what shall we say of the new dangers 
 that beset this new law, from the system lately 
 introduced of conducting the affairs of Govern- 
 ment by spies and informers, wretches, who may 
 become the abettors of the very offence which they 
 afterwards denounce; who may insinuate them- 
 selves into the privacy of our domestic circles, 
 may listen to the unsuspicious conversation of our 
 tables, may urge on the ignorant and unwary to 
 the use of intemperate and thoughtless expres- 
 sions, and may then, by an exaggerated state- 
 ment of what has been said, have them imprison- 
 ed or held to bail at the pleasure of the Magis- 
 trate by whom they are employed? When this 
 new practice is considered, the mischief of this 
 Circular exceeds all bounds. 
 
 " But the power of commitment is given not 
 only in cases of blasphemous and seditious libels. 
 The opinion comprehends libels on individuals, 
 libels of every description. I cannot believe, that 
 the Attorney and Solicitor General, when they 
 gave the opinion which has appeared under their 
 signatures, could have been aware of its conse-
 
 LORD SIDMOUTH'S CIRCULAR LETTER. 247 
 
 quences, or of the use which Ministers would 
 make of it. They would otherwise, I am con- 
 vinced, have been more guarded in their expres- 
 sions. They state at the commencement of their 
 opinion, c that a warrant may be issued to ap- 
 prehend a party charged on oath for publishing a 
 Libel, either by the Secretary of State, a Judge, 
 or a Justice of the Peace ;' but, at the conclu- 
 sion of their opinion, they qualify the word Libel, 
 which, in the first instance, was general, with the 
 epithets ' scandalous and seditious.' This omis- 
 sion in the first, and addition in the second, in- 
 stance, show a negligence, a precipitation, a want 
 of inquiry and deliberation, of which the learned 
 Gentlemen would not have been guilty, had they 
 been aware that they were declaring the law for 
 the whole kingdom. As there is no distinction 
 laid down between the kinds of libels which are 
 comprehended in this new law, so neither are there 
 any limits set to the power of the Magistrates in 
 other respects. If they are suffered to commit for 
 what is not a breach of ,the peace, any other mis- 
 demeanor will fall equally within the limits of 
 their jurisdiction. 
 
 " So much for the importance of this assumed 
 power, which, if it really be the law of the land, I 
 am surprised, has never been called into action 
 until now. In 1793 the Country was deluged with 
 publications which excited the displeasure of Go- 
 vernment, and which were accounted seditious; 
 
 R 4
 
 248 LORD SIDMOUTH'S CIRCULAR LETTER. 
 
 yet it never entered into the mind of the Adminis- 
 tration of that day to give the Magistrates such 
 powers. I remember, that in Warwickshire, 
 Derbyshire, and many other counties, men were 
 prosecuted at the Sessions for libels most pro- 
 voking to Government. Two individuals of the 
 names of Binns and Jones were particularly ob- 
 noxious ; but this weapon was never employed 
 against them. Yet there was no want of zeal 
 among the Magistrates. The two gentlemen who 
 managed almost all the business of Birmingham 
 were great Church and King's men. They had, of 
 course, no disposition to favour seditious libellers, 
 and would have received with pleasure any order 
 of greater severity from Government. If, then, 
 Magistrates overflowing with loyalty, and particu- 
 larly inimical to libels of the kind to which I have 
 alluded, never thought of committing or holding 
 to bail for such offences, if not even the Attorney 
 General of that day, whom no one will charge 
 with ignorance or remissness in the exercise of his 
 duty, thought of telling them, that they possessed 
 such a power, what is the just presumption, what 
 the fair inference to be drawn from such circum- 
 stances, but that none of those persons believed 
 in the existence of such an authority? 
 
 " I am now about to enter into the legal part 
 of the question; but I will not detain the House 
 long. After the admirable argument on this sub-
 
 LORD SIDMOUTH'S CIRCULAR LETTER. 249 
 
 ject which is now in print *, I should be inexcus- 
 able if I did. That argument, I believe, it is dif- 
 ficult to strengthen, and impossible to answer. 
 If the Magistrates possess the power of commit- 
 ting, or requiring bail in cases of libel, they must 
 derive it from their Commission or from Statute. 
 Their Commission is totally silent on the ques- 
 tion-}-. The only part of it on which an interpret- 
 
 * Earl Grey's Speech in the House of Lords, May 12, 1817. 
 The argument contained in it is indeed " admirable," and 
 cannot be too carefully studied by those who wish to understand 
 this important question. 
 
 f The Commission consists of two clauses. The first, de- 
 scribing the power of the Justices out of Sessions, as conservators 
 of the peace, authorizes them " to keep and cause to be 
 kept all statutes and ordinances for the good of the peace, &c. 
 to chastise all persons that offend against the form of these or- 
 dinances and statutes; and to cause to come before them or 
 any of them, all those who have us.-d threats, &c. to find secu- 
 rity for the peace, &c.j and if they shall refuse such security, 
 them in the King's prisons to cause to be safely kept." 
 
 The second clause relating exclusively to the jurisdiction of 
 the Justices at the Sessions of the Peace, says, " We have also 
 assigned you, and every two or more nf you, to inquire the truth 
 more fully, by oath of good and lawful men, of all manner of 
 Felonies, Poisonings, Enchantments, Sorceries, Arts magic, 
 Trespasses, Forestal lings, Regratings, Ingrossings, and Extor- 
 tions whatsoever; and of all and singular other Crimes and 
 Offences, of which the Justices of our Peace may or ought 
 lawfully to inquire, &c. and to bear and determine all and 
 singular the Felonies, Trespasses, &c. &c. according to the 
 Laws and Statutes of England." 
 
 The form of the Commission as it now stands was settled by
 
 250 LORD SIDMOUTH'S CIRCULAR LETTER. 
 
 ation at all favourable to the existence of this 
 power can be fixed, is that which regards Tres- 
 passes; but the whole tenour of the passage shows 
 that the Trespasses there meant are Trespasses 
 against the peace. This too is evidently the con- 
 struction which has been put upon it by Serjeant 
 Hawkins, in his Pleas of the Crown, where he 
 states, that ' any Justice of the Peace may com- 
 mit in cases of Treason, Felony, Praemunire, or 
 any other offence against the peace*! If this 
 power were not so limited, it would comprehend 
 every species of trespass, as well as libel. 
 
 " Lord Coke has said, not, as it is generally 
 supposed, that, Justices have no power of com- 
 mitment in cases of Felony, but, that they did 
 not possess this power at Common Law, having 
 derived it from the statute of Philip and Mary ; 
 and he cites, in proof of his assertion, a case de- 
 termined at Westminster in the 14th year of the 
 reign of Henry VIII. -f~ The decision is reported 
 
 the Judges in the year 15QO, upon due perusal and consideration 
 (as Sir K. Coke assures us) of the former Commission and of 
 the repealed Statutes with which it was incumbered. 4 Inst. 1/1- 
 
 * Pleas of the Crown, Book II. p. 84. 
 
 -f- Sir E. Coke, after referring to Magna Charta, c. '2Q, and 
 Stat. 42 Ed. III. c. 3, and citing the resolution of the Court, 
 viz. of Bruduell, Pollard, Broke, and Fitzherbert, in 14 Hen. 
 VIII. to show, that at common law " a Justice of Peace could 
 not make a Warrant to take a man for Felony, unless he be in- 
 dicted thereof, &c." goes on to say, " Sed distinguenda sunt
 
 LORD SIDMOUTH'S CIRCULAR LETTER. 251 
 
 by Broke, who was one of the Judges on the occa- 
 sion, in his Abridgment, than which there cannot 
 be a better legal authority. Such, then, were the 
 doubts of some of our profoundest lawyers in an- 
 cient times as to the right of commitment in cases 
 of Felony and Treason, at Common Law. It has 
 been reserved for the wisdom of the present day to 
 discover that a power, the legal existence of which 
 was thus questioned even in offences of so high a 
 nature, may be now exercised against every petty 
 trespass within the cognizance of the Sessions. 
 
 " The next authority to which I shall refer is 
 that of Chief Justice Hale. He says, that a Jus- 
 tice of the Peace may, before indictment found, 
 
 tempora, et concordats leges: for since the Statutes of 1 &2 Ph. 
 & Mar. cap. 13; and 2 & 3 Ph. & Mar. cap. 1O (the words 
 whereof be, That the said Justices, or one of them, being of the 
 quorum, when any such prisoner is brought before them for 
 any Manslaughter or Felony, shall take examination, &c.), if any 
 person be charged with any manner of Felony, and information 
 be given to a Justice of the Peace of the Felony or suspicion of 
 Felony, and he feareth that the King's peace may be broken in 
 apprehending of him, the said Justice may make a Warrant to 
 the Constable of the town to see the King's peace kept in the 
 apprehending and bringing of the party charged with or suspect- 
 ed of the Felony, before him ; and the party that giveth the in- 
 formation of his knowledge or suspicion to be present, and ar- 
 rest the delinquent: and in this manner it is implied and intended 
 by the said Statutes for the prisoner to be brought before him ; 
 and this (as we take it) agreeth with the common use and ob- 
 servance ever since those Statutes." 4 Inst. 177.
 
 252 LOUD SIDMOUTH'S CIRCULAR LETTER. 
 
 issue his Warrant to apprehend and imprison any 
 one charged with Felony or other breach of the 
 peace; and he disagrees with Lord Coke so far as 
 to think that, this power was not within the re- 
 straint of Magna Charta and the Acts of Edward 
 the Third, and might, therefore, have been exer- 
 cised before the Statute of Philip and Mary*. I 
 know, that it will be urged in opposition to rny 
 argument, that the same learned Judge, in speak- 
 ing of the objects of such Warrants, in another 
 part of his work, has included ' persons charged 
 with crimes within the cognizance of the Sessions 
 of the peace*{~. But to what crimes does he refer? 
 To Felonies, as is evident not only from the 
 title of the chapter, but from its whole context 
 and subject-matter. He could not have meant 
 here to include, for he has not even adverted to, 
 any offences of a minor nature. He was treating 
 of a higher class of crimes, and endeavouring, in 
 contradiction to Lord Coke, whose opinion he 
 thought * two strait-laced' on the subject, to show 
 that the power of commitment in such cases had 
 always belonged to Magistrates. It was the con- 
 stant and universal practice, lie has added. Now 
 can this remark be made to apply to all Trespasses 
 indictable at the Sessions? Will it be pretended 
 that it was then the practice to commit and hold 
 
 * H ale's Pleas of the Crown, vol. ii. p. 108, 109, 
 f Pleas of the Crown, vol. i. p. 579.
 
 LORD SIDMOUTH'S CIRCULAR LETTER. 253 
 
 to bail for such alleged offences? Will it be pre- 
 tended that it was the practice, in cases of Libel, 
 that it had ever been the practice, even in 
 the most despotic times, when the severest penal- 
 ties were inflicted by prejudiced and corrupt 
 Judges, when ruinous fines, the loss of ears, 
 perpetual exile or imprisonment, were the ordi- 
 nary judgments by which the Court of Star 
 Chamber endeavoured to maintain its dominion 
 over the press*? 
 
 " I know it was held by a majority of the 
 Judges in the case of the Seven Bishops, that a 
 Libel not only tended to a breach of the peace, 
 but was in itself an actual breach, and that a war- 
 rant of commitment, therefore, on refusal to give 
 bail, might be issued against the offenders. But 
 that case, I repeat in the language of Lord Cam- 
 
 * The sentence against Bastwicke, Burton^ and Prynne, was, 
 that they should lose their ears, be fined 500O/. each, and be 
 imprisoned for life in three remote parts of the kingdom. In 
 addition to all this Mr. Prynne was condemned (at the particular 
 instance of Sir John Finch) to be stigmatized in the cheeks with 
 two letters (S and L) for Seditions Libeller. Such was the con- 
 duct of the Judges of the Star Chamber in the time of Charles 
 the First. In the reign of Charles the Second, punishments not 
 indeed so inhuman, but equally arbitrary and illegal, were inflicted 
 by the Court of King's Bench. Barnardiston, for reflections on the 
 Government, contained in private letters, was sentenced to pay 
 10,000/. and Button Colt, for words spoken of the Duke of York, 
 was fined 100,000/. / These things ought never to be forgotten.
 
 254 LORD SIDMOUTH'S CIRCULAR LETTER. 
 
 den, is not law*. A Libel is not a breach of the 
 peace, and there is no book no competent autho- 
 rity in law to show that it was ever considered so, 
 or that it had been the practice to require surety 
 of the peace or bail from persons charged with it. 
 The persecution of Dover and Brewster in 1665 
 will hardly be adduced as a precedent on this oc- 
 casion. They suffered indeed, but it was under 
 the sanction of a particular statute-}-, a tyran- 
 nical law, which (thank Heaven !) no longer exists, 
 and which, though it had been still in force, would 
 not have applied to the present question. The 
 power of commitment possessed by Magistrates 
 under that Act, did not refer to Libels, but to 
 unlicensed works. It was a power too, in the ex- 
 ercise of which they had no discretion. The Sta- 
 tute gave authority to the messengers of the 
 King's Chamber by warrant under his sign ma- 
 nual, or under the hand of a Secretary of State, or 
 of the Master or Wardens of the Stationers' Com- 
 pany, to enter at any time they might think fit, the 
 houses and shops of suspected persons, to exa- 
 
 * Howel's State Trials, vol. xix. p. 990. 
 
 t 13 & 14 Car. II. c. 33. This Act was at first passed for 
 two years, and after having been further continued by the 16 
 Car. II. c. 8, expired in 16/g. It was subsequently revived by 
 1 Jac. II. c. 17, and remained in force until 1692. It was then 
 renewed for two years longer, by Stat. 4 W. & M. c. 24 ; and, 
 notwithstanding all the attempts which were made to continue 
 ii, finally expired in 1694.
 
 LORD SIDMOUTH'S CIRCULAR LETTER. 255 
 
 mine all books contained therein, to seize such 
 as were not licensed, and to bring the several 
 printers or publishers before any one or more Jus- 
 tices of the Peace, who were required, in all such 
 cases, to commit the offenders to prison. 
 
 " Undoubtedly there are offences, not amount- 
 ing to breaches of the peace, for which Magis- 
 trates may commit or hold to bail before indict- 
 ment *. But the exception only proves the rule ; 
 for if, as it is now pretended, they had by ancient 
 law authority to commit for all offences within the 
 cognizance of Sessions, whence, I ask, could arise 
 the necessity of express Statutes to sanction its 
 exercise in particular instances? If, too, the power 
 assumed in case of libel belonged of right to all 
 Justices as conservators of the peace, to what 
 purpose, I would further ask, has an Act been 
 passed to confer it upon any one class of Magis- 
 trates, namely, on the Judges of the Court of 
 King's Bench -j~ ? With respect to the authorities 
 relied on by the Law Officers of the Crown, they 
 amount to nothing. Even admitting, which I am 
 by no means disposed to do, that the case of Mr. 
 Wilkes is not an authority against them J, what 
 
 * See Earl Grey's observations on this part of the question, 
 in the report of his Speech, p. 44, 45. 
 
 f 48 Geo.III. c.58. 
 
 f Lord Camden concludes his judgment m the case of Mr. 
 Wilkes with these words: "We are all of opinion that a Libel is
 
 256 LORD SIDMOUTH'S CIRCULAR LETTER, 
 
 remains in support of their opinion? The opinion 
 of a former Attorney General, and the modern, 
 uncanvassed and uncontested, cases of Spence and 
 Hogg arising out of it*! Why, even general war- 
 rants rested on a better foundation. However ar- 
 
 not a breach of the peace. It tends to the breach of the peace, 
 and that is the utmost. 1 Lev. I3p. But that which only tends 
 to the breach of the peace, cannot be a breach of it. Suppose 
 a Libel to be a breach of the peace, yet I think it cannot ex- 
 clude privilege; lecause, I cannot Jind, that a Libeller is bound 
 to find surety of the peace, in any book whatever, nor ever 
 was, in any case, except one, viz. the case of the Seven Bi- 
 shops, where three Judges said, that surety of the peace was 
 required in the case of a Libel. Judge Powel, the only honest 
 man of the four Judges, dissented; and I am bold to be of his 
 opinion, and to say, that case is not law. But it shows the 
 miserable condition of the state at that time. Upon the whole, 
 it is absurd to require surety of the peace or bail in the case of 
 a Libeller, and therefore Mr. IVilkes must be discharged from 
 his imprisonment." Howel's State Trials, vol.xix. p. 990. 
 
 * Thomas Spence was in the year 1801 held to bail, by Mr. 
 Ford, a Magistrate of the County of Middlesex, for his personal 
 appearance in the King's Bench, to answer the charge of having 
 published a pamphlet, entitled, " The Restoration of Society to its 
 natural State." He was afterwards tried, convicted, and punished 
 on information filed against him by the Attorney General, Sir 
 Edward Law. 
 
 Alexander Hogg in the following year was, at the instance of 
 the same Law Officer, held to bail in the same manner by the 
 Lord Mayor, for selling a work entitled " Trials for Adultery. " 
 An information was filed against him; but having suffered judg- 
 ment to go by default, and having made an affidavit that he had 
 stopped the sale of the book, he was not called up for sentence. 
 
 4
 
 LORD SIDMOUTH'S CIRCULAR LETTER. 257 
 
 bitrary and inconsistent with the principles of the 
 Law and the Constitution, they could at least 
 plead some small degree of antiquity in their fa- 
 vour*. But as to the present case, as to the 
 power now stated to belong to Magistrates, I am 
 at a loss to discover any usage or authority what- 
 soever to sanction its exercise. Indeed, until I 
 saw the opinion of the Attorney and Solicitor Ge- 
 neral, and the Circular Letter of the Secretary of 
 State, I did not know that such a power was ever 
 supposed to exist. I had enjoyed many opportu- 
 nities of seeing the practice of Sessions ; I had 
 conversed with many learned Friends well ac- 
 quainted with the powers of Magistrates; but I 
 never before heard of any thing like the doctrine 
 now advanced ; and if it is the law of the land, 
 which I do not believe, no time ought to be lost by 
 the Legislature in altering it. 
 
 " Sir, in bringing forward the present Motion 
 I have been actuated by no feeling of hostility to- 
 wards the noble Lord, whose conduct is the sub- 
 ject of it. I entertain towards him no personal 
 disrespect. In any intercourse which I may have 
 had with him, I have been treated with candour, 
 and should be disposed to show him gratitude ra- 
 ther than opposition, could I allow any thing like 
 private feeling to interfere with my sense of public 
 
 ' 
 * See Howel'i State Trials, vol.xix.p. 10271067. 
 
 VOL. II. S
 
 258 LORD SIDMOUTHS CIRCULAR LETTER. 
 
 duty. It is not, however, to the conduct of the 
 noble Secretary alone, that, I conceive, my censure 
 will apply. I believe the whole Administration to 
 be culpable for any illegality that has been com- 
 mitted, particularly, the noble Lord at the head 
 of the legal Administration of the Country. The 
 doctrines now justified, and the conduct now pur- 
 sued, must, in my opinion, if not counteracted, 
 operate ultimately to the destruction of every 
 thing that is valuable in our Laws and Constitu- 
 tion. I will always raise my voice against such 
 pernicious innovations ; and if, in after-times, 
 when this country shall be placed in that different 
 situation to which it is hastening, and the liberties 
 which our ancestors transmitted to us, shall be 
 no longer enjoyed by our posterity, it shall be- 
 come a question with the curious, how this change 
 from freedom to arbitrary power began, what 
 were the first symptoms of our decay, and what 
 the first inroads on the Constitution, it will then 
 be seen that there were some persons, who were 
 not insensible to the signs of approaching slavery, 
 who denounced the tendency of arbitrary pro- 
 ceedings and warned their countrymen against 
 them. [Hear, hear, from Mr. Forke.'] The right 
 hon. Gentleman, who appears to dissent from this 
 opinion, is a descendant of men, who were an 
 honour to the profession of the Law, and who 
 would have beheld these precedents in a very dif- 
 ferent light from that in which he seems to view
 
 LORD SIDMOUTH'S CIRCULAR LETTER. 259 
 
 them. If those, who are to follow us, make as 
 rapid progress in advancing from the point at 
 which we now are, as we have done in advancing 
 from that where our predecessors stood, the season 
 for the melancholy inquiry, to which I have al- 
 luded, is not far distant, and the Country may 
 decline into slavery without being aware of it. 
 
 " I know, Sir, that the noble Lord, whose offi- 
 cial conduct I have now brought before the House, 
 far from qualifying or retracting, is disposed 
 to glory in what he has done. ' If I am accused * 
 (he says) ' of having used my best endeavours to 
 stop the progress of blasphemy and sedition, I 
 plead guilty to the charge, and whilst I live, 
 shall be ever proud to have such a charge brought 
 against me!' Such, however, let the noble Lord 
 recollect, has been the argument of bigots and 
 tyrants in all ages. Such was the boast of the 
 Duke of Alva, of Philip the Second, and his 
 sanguinary Consort, when without remorse they 
 tortured thousands of their fellow-creatures, 
 when in their unrelenting zeal they spared neither 
 age, sex, nor condition. They too sought for a 
 cover of their cruelties in pretexts of religion, and 
 believed themselves, or would have persuaded 
 others, that they were only actuated by a pious 
 desire to extirpate heresy and irreligion! Can the 
 noble Lord or can any one really believe, $hat reli- 
 gion is in danger, that it can be in danger at a time,
 
 260 LORD SIDMOUTH'S CIRCULAR LETTER. 
 
 when, as my hon. Friend now near me * knows, 
 a greater portion of the people are imbued with 
 its principles than perhaps at any former period? 
 Do we imagine that irreligion and blasphemy, if 
 they exist, can be suppressed by the means pro- 
 posed? Or must we not rather see, that the ob- 
 ject of Ministers in making such a pretence, is to 
 gain over a party which cannot otherwise be in- 
 duced to sanction their measures, and that they 
 are injuring the cause of genuine morals and reli- 
 gion by offering it such hypocritical protection? 
 
 " Sir, I shall now conclude by moving my pro- 
 posed. Address for a Copy of the Case which has 
 been submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown. 
 Without it, we are unable to know the precise 
 ground on which the opinion is founded, whether 
 it was fairly asked, and whether they had time to 
 consult and to consider the legal and constitu- 
 tional question in all its bearings." 
 
 On the Motion being put a Debate ensued, 
 which was supported, on the one side, by Sir Wil- 
 liam Burroughs, Mr. Courtenay, Sir Charles 
 Monck, and Sir Francis Burdett, and, on the 
 other, by the Attorney and Solicitor General, Mr. 
 Hiley Addington, and Mr. Charles Wynn. Sir 
 Samuel Romilly replied, after which the House 
 divided : 
 
 Mr. Wilberforce.
 
 THE ADDRESS. 261 
 
 Ayes - .--..--49 
 Noes - - - - 157 
 
 Majority against the Motion 108 
 
 THE ADDRESS. 
 
 January 27$, 1818. 
 
 ; ' ~)ui 
 
 THE Speech of the Prince Regent to the two 
 Houses of Parliament having been read by the 
 Speaker, the usual Address was moved by Mr. 
 Wodehouse and seconded by Mr. Windham Quin. 
 After some observations from Lord Althorp and 
 the Attorney General, Sir Samuel Romilly rose 
 and said, that, agreeing, as he did, in every part 
 of the Address as far as he was able to understand 
 it by hearing it read, he should be most sorry to 
 say any thing that might have the effect of unne- 
 cessarily interrupting the harmony of the House. 
 There was one subject alone, which, if any occur- 
 rence could create harmony, would cause it to 
 prevail on that occasion. If ever there was an 
 event of distress and calamity, it was that on 
 which they had then to offer their condolence to 
 the Throne, the loss of the illustrious Princess 
 
 s 3
 
 262 THE ADDRESS. 
 
 who had engrossed the affections, and engaged 
 the hopes of the nation. 
 
 " This alone" (continued Sir Samuel Romilly) 
 " would induce me, even if I had not been other- 
 wise disposed, to abstain from every topic not es- 
 sentially necessary on the present occasion. Some 
 occurrences, however, have taken place during 
 the recess, which, though not alluded to in the 
 Address, are of such a nature as to require the 
 attention of the House. Amongst these are the 
 late Trials, on which a noble Lord (Althorp), in 
 the exercise of his Parliamentary privileges and 
 duty, has so justly animadverted. Those pro- 
 secutions are of the utmost importance, as form- 
 ing a part of the present system of Govern- 
 ment. They are to be considered, not as in- 
 sulated events, but as events intimately connected 
 with the measures which have been so lately sanc- 
 tioned by this House. They throw great light on 
 the extraordinary Act, which has deprived us of the 
 most valuable part of the Constitution. 
 
 " Sir, the Parliament has been now called to- 
 gether under a public calamity ; for what but a 
 calamity must I consider the suspension of the 
 best parts of the Constitution? I will say nothing 
 of the promise which we have received, of the im- 
 mediate repeal of that measure. I only advert to 
 the occurrences which throw li<>-ht on the grounds 
 
 o O 
 
 on which the suspension was passed, a measure 
 in which, as it seems to me, Parliament has pro-
 
 THE ADDRESS. 263 
 
 ceeded altogether in the dark. The Committees in 
 this House, and in the House of Lords, have given 
 their reasons for not disclosing all the facts on 
 which they had founded their judgment. Some 
 of the facts, they said, would compromise the 
 safety of the individuals who communicated them, 
 whilst others might have an undue influence on 
 the judicial investigations which were then stated 
 to be in progress. Facts, however, have since 
 occurred to show the weight which was due to the, 
 general assertions contained in these Reports. I 
 allude to the proceedings at Manchester, at 
 Derby, and in Scotland. All the evidence in all 
 the transactions which have been made the subject 
 of judicial inquiry, has only tended to destroy the 
 foundations on which we proceeded in the last 
 Session. In the last Report of the Secret Com- 
 mittee the transactions at Manchester occupied 
 the foreground. In both the Reports it was stated 
 that a treasonable conspiracy of the most atrocious 
 kind existed there, that it had been in agitation 
 amongst the idle and disaffected to attack the 
 barracks, and to burn the manufactories for the 
 sole purpose of destroying the means of work, and 
 adding by the general distress to the numbers of 
 those who would engage in their desperate plans. 
 In the Lords' Report, the phrase was ' to make 
 Manchester a second Moscow? It was stated in 
 those Reports, that some of the conspirators were 
 
 s4
 
 264 THE ADDRESS. 
 
 in custody ; but have any of them been brought 
 to trial? Have any of them been even indicted 
 for a capital offence? Or how have they been pro- 
 ceeded against? They have been indicted for mis- 
 demeanors, which, to prevent, as it would 
 seem, the disclosure of the real facts by imme- 
 diate trial, were all removed by certiorari into 
 the Court of King's Bench. At the next assizes 
 what occurred? Why, the learned Gentleman 
 who acted for the Attorney General at Lancaster, 
 said that he should produce no evidence against the 
 prisoners. It is stated, that the prosecutions were 
 discontinued, because every thing was tranquil, 
 and because Ministers were willing to show their 
 clemency. Sir, the Government knew from the 
 very beginning that no evidence could be brought 
 against these unhappy creatures so as to convict 
 them. They, therefore, made a merit of necessity, 
 and took credit to themselves for humanity, in not 
 attempting to produce evidence which never ex- 
 isted. If this was, as I contend it to have been, 
 the case, if there was no truth in the statements 
 of the Report as to the atrocious measures of 
 destruction meditated by these men, where is 
 the boasted clemency of Ministers? If, on the 
 contrary, as it is pretended, these charges are 
 true; if the persons accused are in reality guilty 
 of having conspired to burn factories, to attack 
 barracks, and to create a revolution, why hav
 
 THE ADDRESS. " 265 
 
 they thus been suffered to escape with impunity? 
 Where was the necessity, where the policy or 
 justice of discharging them without punishment or 
 even trial? 
 
 " These daring men, these alleged criminals, 
 were discharged in September. Such was the 
 tranquillity of the Country at that period, that it 
 was deemed unnecessary notwithstanding the 
 undoubted evidence which was said to exist as to 
 the atrocious nature of their designs to subject 
 these persons even to the ordinary modes of legal 
 trial! But what became of others against whom 
 no such charges had been insinuated ? What 
 was the fate of those minor offenders, who without 
 any specific charges alleged against them, had 
 been arrested under the suspension of the Habeas 
 Corpus? They at least should have been allowed 
 to participate in that amnesty which the indul- 
 gence of Government had so liberally extended 
 to the most outrageous criminals. Whilst the 
 latter were thus absolved from every penalty, it is 
 hardly to be credited that the former should, with- 
 out even the pretence of legal evidence against 
 them, have been detained for months in prison.! 
 
 " Sir, the next transactions, which throw a 
 light upon the late measures of Government, are 
 those which have occurred in Scotland; but into 
 them I will not enter at any length, as they are to 
 be made the subject of a separate Motion by a noble 
 .Lord behind me (Lord A. Hamilton). I trust,
 
 26'() THE ADDRKSS. 
 
 however, that the House has not forgotten the 
 speech of the Lord Advocate on a former occasion, 
 and the oath which he then read with so much 
 effect. The person charged with having adminis- 
 tered that oath (though proceeded against on three 
 several indictments, so determined were his prose- 
 cutors to prevent the possibility of escape), has 
 been at last acquitted. I will say nothing at pre- 
 sent, of the extraordinary, unprecedented unpre- 
 cedented, I am confident, in England, and, I be- 
 lieve, even in Scotland the unprecedented at- 
 tempts to prevail on another prisoner to give evi- 
 dence against the accused*. 
 
 * I have next, Sir, to request the attention of 
 the House to the proceedings at Derby. I do not 
 mean to call in question their result, or to decide 
 whether the prisoners were properly or improperly 
 convicted of the crime of High Treason. Whe- 
 ther the argument on the law of the case and on 
 the enlarged construction to be given to the Riot 
 Act, as urged with such consummate ability by 
 their counsel, was erroneous or not ; the prisoners 
 were still guilty of a capital offence. Brandreth 
 had committed murder, and his colleagues, as 
 aiders and abettors of the crime, were all equally 
 guilty in the eye of the law. But the proceedings 
 
 * See the note at die end of Sir S. Romill/s Speech on the 
 Slate Trials in Scotland.
 
 THE ADDRESS. 267 
 
 on these trials, more than any other, have pro- 
 nounced a full condemnation on the suspension of 
 the Habeas Corpus. In the first place, that Act 
 had been suspended five months, yet it did not 
 prevent those crimes. It is evident, too, how 
 much care was taken on those trials to conceal the 
 truth. No evidence of any transaction anterior 
 to the 8th of June, was suffered to transpire; al- 
 though the Attorney General in his opening speech 
 had distinctly stated that he could prove that the 
 conspirators had held previous meetings in pur- 
 suance of their plans. Sir, if the officers of the 
 Crown were in possession of such evidence, they 
 were bound to produce it. The public had a 
 right to expect it. It was not merely the guilt or 
 innocence of the individuals accused which was in 
 issue, but the credit due to Government. The 
 character of Ministers the character of the two 
 Houses of Parliament was at stake. Yet no evi- 
 dence respecting those meetings was given! Sir, 
 there is from this circumstance alone a presump- 
 tion, a presumption which all the information 
 which I have received upon the subject only tends 
 to confirm, that the whole of the insurrection 
 was the work of persons sent out by the Govern- 
 ment, not indeed for that specific purpose, not 
 xvith a view, on the part of their employers, of fo- 
 menting disaffection and riot, but, as emissaries 
 of sedition from clubs which never existed. The 
 extraordinary exertions of the Crown Lawyers to
 
 268 THE ADDRESS. 
 
 keep back the earliest circumstances of the case, 
 have prevented us from ascertaining how far the 
 information may be correct. In my conscience, 
 however, I believe it. The Attorney General was 
 repeatedly called on by the counsel for the pri- 
 soners to produce the evidence to which I have 
 alluded. He was called upon to do so, on the 
 first, on the second, and on the third trial ; yet 
 he persevered in the course which he had first 
 adopted, and in spite of the suspicion necessarily 
 incident to such a proceeding 1 , has chosen to leave 
 every transaction prior to the 8th of June, in 
 obscurity. 
 
 " Here too we have a specimen of the great 
 advantages which were promised to the Country 
 from the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus. It 
 was often asked during the discussion' of the 
 measure in this House, what use was to be made 
 of the extraordinary powers thus required by Mi- 
 nisters? To this it was invariably answered, 
 that, when a conspiracy was 'foreseen, or an in- 
 surrection was on the point of breaking out, the 
 leaders might be apprehended, and their mischie- 
 vous intentions at once defeated. But can this 
 have been any thing more than a mere pretext on 
 the part of Ministers ? They had received in- 
 formation of Brandreth's designs, they were 
 aware of all his movements ; yet they did not 
 seize him. No. He remained at liberty ; he was 
 suffered to go on, until he had effected all the
 
 THE ADDRESS. 269 
 
 mischief in his power. Thus on the very occa- 
 sion, for which this measure, according to the ar- 
 guments of its advocates, was so happily calcu- 
 lated, at the only moment when its exertion 
 could have been attended with any possible ad- 
 vantage, it was then for the first time suffered to 
 lie dormant and useless. 
 
 " Another subject to which, as connected with 
 the general conduct of the Administration since 
 the last Session, I think it my duty to advert, is 
 the case of Mr. Hone. The publications, for the 
 suppression of which the proceedings against him 
 were said to have been instituted, compose a part 
 of the evidence on which the liberties of the 
 Country have been suspended. The House will 
 remember the horror expressed by the late Attorney 
 General (Sir William Gar row) at receiving one of 
 these Parodies ; how monstrously blasphemous 
 and profane he declared it to be ; how, on 
 being called on to read it, he protested that he 
 could never be guilty of any thing so abominable 
 as to read such a flagitious libel in a British 
 House of Commons ; but that he would seal it 
 up and lay it on the table, and if any one chose 
 to break the seal, the consequence should be on 
 his head ! Yet, notwithstanding all this delicacy 
 and regard for the public morals expressed by the 
 learned Gentleman, his successor has proceeded to 
 multiply copies of these Parodies by thousands, 
 and to scatter them in profusion over all parts of
 
 270 THK ADDRESS. 
 
 the country. Before he commenced his prosecu- 
 tions they had disappeared, they had been sup- 
 pressed by their author, and withdrawn alto- 
 gether from circulation. It was stated by a wit- 
 ness 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, 
 which had been originally published at two pence. 
 These Parodies, therefore, had been withdrawn 
 from the public notice, had entirely disappeared, 
 when my hon. and learned Friend, in his anxious 
 endeavours to protect religion and morality, 
 thought proper to publish a new edition of them. 
 Under the pretence of preventing their publica- 
 tion, he has given them a permanent place in the 
 history of the Country, he has made them a part 
 of its judicial annals, he has given occasion to 
 the editor to collect all the Parodies which had 
 been published in former ages, to print them in a 
 convenient little volume, and to hand them down 
 to posterity. And why has this been done ? Why 
 were the prosecutions of Mr. Hone persisted in, if, 
 according to the language held to the prisoners 
 at Lancaster, the evil sought to be suppressed, 
 was previously at an end, and the state of the 
 Country had become so tranquil and so satisfac- 
 tory as to enable the Administration to exercise 
 with safety the Royal clemency? But the cle- 
 mency, for which the officers of the Crown have
 
 THE ADDRESS. 271 
 
 been so desirous to take credit, is reserved only for 
 those whom they see no chance of convicting. 
 
 " Sir, I do not mean to defend the publica- 
 tions in question. They are most offensive and 
 reprehensible, though they do not amount to 
 blasphemy, as they have been said to do else- 
 where. They were evidently composed for a poli- 
 tical object, and not for the purpose of attacking 
 religion ; but whatever might have been their ob- 
 ject, their composition is most offensive and in- 
 defensible. To treat with levity the religion of 
 the Country, to hold up sacred subjects to ri- 
 dicule, by employing their language to promote 
 political objects, and to inspire the minds of the 
 people with a contempt for those doctrines, which 
 may be respected for their importance to public 
 morals, even by those who do not believe their 
 divine authenticity, is conduct that deserves the 
 highest reprehension. My hon. and learned 
 Friend (the Attorney General) cannot feel greater 
 disapprobation of such publications than I do ; 
 still I am unable to discover a justification of the 
 course which he has pursued on this occasion. I 
 am willing to believe, that he was not stimulated 
 to these prosecutions by vindictive motives ; and 
 yet I scarcely know on what other grounds to ex- 
 plain his conduct. If the proceedings were not 
 vindictive, what were they? For what purpose 
 were they instituted ? Were they for prevention ? 
 No the publications had been stopped long be- 
 
 4
 
 272 THE ADDRESS. 
 
 fore my learned Friend came forward to suppress 
 them. This injudicious attempt has brought them 
 again into public notice, and has given them an in- 
 finitely wider currency than they could have ob- 
 tained in their original state, with a great mass of 
 concealed, forgotten, and unknown Parodies at- 
 tached to them. 
 
 " I cannot believe that my learned Friend 
 could have contemplated these consequences; and 
 yet, how could they have escaped him? What 
 else was to be expected from such prosecutions 
 but the revival of obsolete and unknown Parodies, 
 and the circulation of them to an infinitely greater 
 extent than they could ever possibly have attained 
 by any other means? But notwithstanding this 
 natural anticipation my learned Friend persevered 
 in the prosecution; nay, not satisfied with the 
 effects of one prosecution, he has gone on with 
 two others, as if his only object had been to give 
 currency to such compositions, and to procure 
 still further supplies of them for the public amuse- 
 ment. Why was the second prosecution persisted 
 in by my learned Friend, after he had failed in 
 obtaining a verdict on the first? Because, said 
 he, the second Parody was as much a libel as the 
 first, and to have relinquished the prosecution 
 would have been a dereliction of his public duty. 
 But is it the duty of an Attorney General to pro- 
 secute every thing that is prosecutable ? To pro- 
 secute all Parodies ? -If this should be the case, a 
 
 2
 
 TH ADDRESS. '273 
 
 heavier obligation will be. imposed upon him, 
 than he is perhaps aware of. He may have to 
 carry his prosecutions into other quarters. My 
 hon. and learned Friend must look around him. 
 
 " But instead of three prosecutions, in the 
 case of Mr. Hone, would not one have been suffi- 
 cient ? Or should not, at least, the verdicts given 
 in the two former trials, have taught the Govern- 
 ment what was to be expected in the third ? In 
 the third, however, they proceeded, although the 
 Court of King's Bench (in a similar case where 
 the Defendant had thrown himself on the tender 
 mercies of the Attorney General) had considered 
 the subject of this prosecution as far less offensive 
 than those of the two former*. The least cri- 
 
 * The Parodies for which Mr. Hone was prosecuted were 
 entitled, " The late John Wilkes's Catechism of a Ministerial 
 Member" "The Political Litany" and "The Sinecurist's 
 Creed," which was a Parody on the Athanasian Creed. For the 
 publication of these three Parodies he was three times tried and 
 acquitted by three special Juries. The first trial took place 
 before Mr. Justice Abbot, on the 18th of December, 1817; the 
 second and third before Lord Ellenborough on the two following 
 days. The argument of the Attorney General on these several 
 trials was in substance, that Christianity was part of the Common 
 Law of England, and that the obvious and necessary effect of 
 these Parodies was to bring that religion into contempt. The 
 Defendant, therefore, as the publisher of them, was guilty of 
 most impious and profane libels. On the other hand, Mr. Hone 
 contended, that the Parodies were written and published solely 
 for political purposes, and not with any intention of exciting 
 impiety and degrading the Christian religion. The Jury, he ob- 
 YOL. II. T
 
 274 THE ADDRKSS. 
 
 minal of the Parodies was the last prosecuted, 
 and the prosecution was thus persevered in, after 
 
 served, and not the Attorney General or the Judge, were to de- 
 cide on what was, or was not, Lihel ; and he called upon them to 
 return a verdict, not on the effect which the publication of these 
 Parodies might have produced out of doors, but on the intention 
 with which they were written and published. He then proceed- 
 ed to show, that works of a similar nature had been published in 
 all ages; that Mardn Luther, and some of the most eminent 
 divines, that Lord Somers, Mr. Burke, and several of our most 
 distinguished lawyers and statesmen, that one of the present 
 Members of the Cabinet, one of his prosecutors (the Right Hon. 
 George Canning), had written 'and published Parodies on various 
 parts of the Scriptures, not with an impious and profane inten- 
 tion, but to serve their own particular views. None of these 
 persons had been ever prosecuted. With respect to himself he 
 should call evidence to prove, that, long before he was prosecuted, 
 he had stopped the sale of these Parodies, and had even refused a 
 guinea for a copy of one of them. This he had done, not from any 
 doubt at the time about the legality of such publications, but to 
 satisfy the scruples of some respectable persons who had objected 
 to their nature and tendency. Under all these circumstances, fol- 
 lowing as he had only done, the great examples which had been 
 set him upon this subject, having, the moment he was con- 
 vinced of the impropriety of such works, withdrawn them from 
 circulation, could he be said to be guilty of the crime alleged 
 against him ? Could the Jury, looking at the work itself, and 
 taking into consideration the circumstances connected with it, 
 say that it was the intention of the Defendant, not to ridicule 
 Ministerial Members, but to excite impiety and bring religion 
 into contempt ? The verdicts of acquittal were received with 
 the loudest acclamations, and a sum of nearly ^3000 has been 
 since raised by public subscription, for the purpose of re-esta- 
 blishing Mr. Hone in the business of a Bookseller. 
 
 With respect to the other case to which Sir Samuel Romilly
 
 THE ADDRESS* 
 
 a double failure, because, according to the. ex- 
 planation of my learned Friend himself, he 
 thought it would have manifested weakness in 
 him to relinquish it. I mean nothing personal to 
 the Attorney General. He is to be considered 
 only as an agent of the Government, on whose 
 views, and at whose instigation, he has doubtless 
 acted in bringing on the third trial. 
 
 " What has been the object of Government in 
 these prosecutions? To protect the interests, and 
 vindicate the cause of religion? -No, certainly. 
 This could not have been among the objects which 
 they had in view, or they would not have taken 
 such effectual measures to defeat it. The fact, I 
 believe, is, that it was to avenge their own personal 
 quarrels, that Ministers instituted and persevered 
 in these prosecutions. They felt sore at having had 
 their conduct and characters exposed to public 
 view, at having been derided as impolitic States- 
 men, and improvident treasurers of the public 
 
 has here alluded., it was that of a Mr. James Williams, a sta- 
 tioner at Portsea. Two informations had been filed against him 
 for printing and publishing two Parodies, one on the Litany, 
 the other on the Atliannsian Creed. He suffered judgment to 
 go by default in both, and was sentenced for the Jirst Parody, 
 to be imprisoned for eight calendar months, to pay a fine of 100/. 
 and to give security for his good behaviour for five years, himself 
 in 300^. and two sureties in 150/. each. For the second offence, 
 the Parody on the Athanasian Creed, he was ordered to be im- 
 prisoned for four months. 
 
 T2
 
 276 THE ADDRESS. 
 
 monry, if* a language familiar to all ears and ca- 
 pacities. This lias been one of the motives of 
 their conduct. Another object, which I believe 
 they had in view, is of a still worse nature. It is 
 one in which I trust that they may be for ever 
 defeated. I believe in rny conscience that Mi- 
 nisters, by urging these prosecutions in the face 
 of repeated failures, wished to bring the Trial 
 by Jury that great safeguard of our rights into 
 discredit and contempt, that they might, by the 
 assistance of a religious cry, be enabled with less 
 opposition to lay restraints upon the press. I 
 cannot forget, that, in those vehicles of public 
 opinion, which are tinder the control and guid- 
 ance of Government, such a project has been 
 broached* and 1 am convinced, that the destruc- 
 tion of that confidence generally reposed in Juries 
 is a preparatory part of the plan. If this was their 
 object, it has been happily defeated by the firm- 
 ness of the Juries, combined with the good sense, 
 public spirit, and active vigilance of the Country. 
 " The Trial by Jury, Sir, is one of the greatest 
 bulwarks of our rights; and I should scarcely 
 have believed it possible, that any Ministers, 
 under the House of Brunswick, could have enter- 
 tained the idea or the wish to bring it into con- 
 tempt, if I had not witnessed in the conduct of 
 the present Government, so many circumstances, 
 consistent only with such a project. Sir, I can- 
 not forget the course which they have been so
 
 THE ADDRESS. 277 
 
 systematically pursuing, the inroads which they 
 have made, step by step, on the most essential 
 parts of the Constitution. I cannot forget that 
 they are the same Ministers who have promul- 
 gated new laws, on the authority of the legal 
 advisers of the Crown, who have interfered 
 with the duties, and placed the liberty of the 
 press under the control, of the local Magistracy. 
 I cannot forget that they are the same Ministers 
 who have suspended the Act of Habeas Corpus 
 twice in a period of profound peace, who 
 have refused to divulge even the names of the un- 
 fortunate persons imprisoned under it, and who 
 in defiance of law, in violation of an express 
 Act of Parliament, have dared to interpose the 
 Royal prerogative between them and the visiting 
 Magistrates of the counties in which they were 
 confined. I cannot forget that they are the same 
 Ministers, who after confining men for several 
 months in prison without a charge, have dismissed 
 them without a trial; who, after requiring them 
 to acknowledge they had done wrong by giving 
 security for the peace, have, on their refusal to 
 give such security, allowed them to depart with- 
 out it, who, in fine, conscious of the illegality of 
 their proceedings, and the severe animadversions 
 to which they have thereby exposed themselves, 
 now trust to a Bill of Indemnity to cover their 
 conduct. 
 
 4f If, Sir, their object in the repeated prosecu-
 
 278 SECRET COMMITTEE. 
 
 tions of Mr. Hone, was what I have stated, and 
 what the whole tenour of their conduct justifies 
 me in believing, I am happy to see, that they 
 have been defeated by the good sense and public 
 principles of the People. If such plans were 
 formed, they have now proved abortive, and the 
 religious cry by which Ministers got into office, 
 has not, on this occasion, turned to their ad- 
 vantage." 
 
 Sir Samuel Rom illy concluded, by saying, that 
 he 'had thus taken the earliest opportunity of call- 
 ing the attention of the House to these subjects, 
 and that he should have reckoned silence on such 
 an occasion a dereliction of his public duty. 
 
 SECRET COMMITTEE. 
 
 February 5th, 1818. 
 
 LORD Castlereagh moved that all the papers rela- 
 tive to the state of the Country, then lying upon the 
 table of the House, should be referred to a Secret 
 Committee chosen by ballot. After Mr. Tierney 
 and Mr. F. Douglas had spoken against, and Mr. 
 Bragge Bathurst in support of, the Motion, Sir 
 Samuel Romilly rose, and said, that he per- 
 fectly concurred with the noble Lord in the neces- 
 sity, although he totally differed from him with
 
 ICRfiT COMMITTEE. 279 
 
 regard to the nature, of the proposed Inquiry. 
 What prospect could be entertained of any effec- 
 tive inquiry from such a Committee as that which 
 was about to be constituted ? The proposed 
 mode of proceeding was altogether unprecedent- 
 ed. There was no instance upon record of the 
 reference of papers to a Committee, but with a 
 view to some measure of intended legislation. The 
 noble Lord, however, had stated that no legislative 
 measure was in contemplation. The Lords Com- 
 missioners representing the Crown on the first 
 day of the Session had in the speech on that occa- 
 sion declared the same thing. They had stated 
 that tranquillity was restored, and that nothing 
 more was wanting to maintain it than the perse- 
 vering vigilance of the Magistracy, In the per- 
 formance of their duties. This had been followed 
 by a notice from Ministers of the intended repeal 
 of the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act, and by the 
 liberation, and discharge from their recognizances 
 of the persons arrested under it, on the Motion 
 of the Attorney General. The only object then 
 of appointing a Committee must be to lay the 
 groundwork of a Bill of Indemnity, which it was 
 thought expedient to get preceded by at least the 
 appearance of an inquiry, in the existing state of 
 public opinion. 
 
 " If any thing" (continued Sir Samuel Ro- 
 milly) " could surprise me in the conduct or 
 language of Ministers, I should have been sur- 
 
 T 4
 
 280 SECRET COMMITTEE. 
 
 prised at hearing the noble Lord describe a Bill 
 of Indemnity as a sort of natural and necessary 
 consequence, arising out of the important trust 
 which has been reposed in the servants of the 
 Crown. Let those who have supported the Act 
 for suspending the Habeas Corpus, contrast this 
 language with the language held by the noble 
 Lord and his colleagues when that measure was 
 first proposed. The House was then told of the 
 anxiety and fears of Ministers, of their reluc- 
 tance to undergo the painful burden about to be 
 imposed upon them, of the awful responsibi- 
 lity which would attend the exercise of such a 
 trust ! Now, however, when the administration 
 of their trust is to be considered, the noble Lord 
 informs the House, that a Bill of Indemnity to 
 Ministers must always follow the suspension of 
 the Constitution as a matter of course. What 
 too was the language of the same persons during 
 the continuance of the Suspension ? They were 
 then continually talking of the moderation and 
 mildness with which the new law was executed, 
 and defying even the possibility of a charge 
 against themselves. Now, the noble Lord tells us 
 of the hardship of their being obliged to defend 
 themselves in Courts of Justice against every indi- 
 vidual who may complain of their conduct, and 
 the necessity of taking shelter under an Act of 
 Indemnity ! 
 
 " Sir, I hope that the House will now see 
 the necessity of an ample investigation ; that it
 
 SECRET COMMITTEE. 261 
 
 will not suffer itself again to be deluded; that 
 it will inquire when the danger, if danger 
 there was to the State, has ceased to exist ; 
 and whether Parliament ought not to have been 
 assembled at an earlier period. It is of great 
 importance that an inquiry should be instituted 
 for the purpose of ascertaining what was the 
 state of the Country in the month of September 
 no less than in that of June. Although tranquil- 
 lity even according to the admission of Minis- 
 ters themselves was restored in September; al- 
 though, in the confidence of that tranquillity, per- 
 sons, who had been six months imprisoned under 
 the most serious charges, were set at liberty with- 
 out trial* Parliament was not called together. 
 It was not until January, that Ministers thought 
 proper to adopt that measure, thus using their 
 own discretion, instead of appealing to the judg- 
 ment of Parliament, with respect to the continu- 
 ance of those extraordinary powers with which, 
 unhappily for the best interests of the Country, 
 thev had been armed. 
 
 w 
 
 " It is likewise, I think, important that the 
 grounds on which the Suspension Act was passed 
 should be re-examined. It is necessary that we 
 should have some further information as to the ac- 
 tual state of the Country at that period. The cha- 
 racter of the evidence, on which the Reports of 
 the two former Committees of this House were 
 
 * See Vol. II. pr. 203.
 
 282 tBCRET COMMlTTKKt, 
 
 founded, is notorious. The only witnesses exa- 
 mined as it is now admitted were spies and in- 
 formers, persons who availing themselves of the 
 distress of the times had gone, from place to place, 
 to instil disaffection amongst the ignorant and un- 
 wary, calling upon a starving population to vin- 
 dicate their rights, and to join the thousands and 
 tens of thousands whom they represented a's ready 
 to rise against their oppressors in every part of the 
 empire! These were the witnesses, who are now 
 acknowledged to have been examined before the 
 Committees of Parliament, for the purpose of 
 establishing plots, which (if they any where ex- 
 isted to the extent described) had been planned or 
 excited by the very persons who thus denounced 
 them ! 
 
 " Let me entreat the House to consider the 
 serious responsibility which it has incurred in these 
 transactions. Let me entreat the House to reflect 
 on the account which it must render to its Consti- 
 tuents and to the Country, if it shall be found to 
 have persevered in thus lending its sanction to a 
 system of delusion and injustice. Do we deceive 
 ourselves with a notion, that the mere appointment 
 of another Committee by ballot will satisfy the 
 minds of the people? Do we imagine that it is 
 possible for them not to discover the object of 
 Ministers in the appointment of a Committee, thus 
 nominated by themselves? That it is to furnish 
 grounds for a Bill of Indemnity to protect them 
 from the legal consequences of abused authority-
 
 BCRET COMMITTEE. 283 
 
 To discover the absurdity of the course which 
 we are now required to adopt, it is sufficient only 
 to look at the practice of the House in other in- 
 stances. How, for example, should we act, if 
 one of our Members, unconnected with the Go- 
 vernment, was charged with any misconduct cog- 
 nizable by the House? Should we not, after hear- 
 ing his defence, require him to withdraw, and 
 then proceed to the decision of his case, as our 
 judgments and consciences directed? Here, how- 
 ever, what is done? The Ministers the very 
 persons accused arrogate to themselves the pri- 
 vilege of being their own judges. Fearful of sub- 
 jecting their conduct to the consequences of a 
 free and open inquiry, they endeavour to elude 
 conviction and to blind the people by the inter- 
 vention of a Committee nominally appointed by 
 ballot, but in reality selected by, and for the 
 most part even composed of, themselves and their 
 own unvarying supporters. It may be said, that 
 the event will still ultimately depend on the majo- 
 rity of the House ; but is it not a fact, that the 
 majority will be led by the minority, claiming, as 
 the latter will, an authority from the inspection of 
 documents which the former has not the means of 
 investigating for itself? 
 
 " I am surprised to hear an hon. and learned 
 Gentleman on the other side (the Solicitor General) 
 assert that the trials at Derby have fully esta- 
 blished the necessity of the Suspension Act. If 
 there was one thing more remarkable than ano-
 
 284 SLECRKT COMMITTEE. 
 
 ther in the course of those trials, it was the stu- 
 died caution and anxiety with which the counsel 
 for the Crown avoided every circumstance which 
 could throw a light on the origin of the conspi- 
 racy. Although repeatedly challenged by the pri- 
 soners' counsel to do so, they did not adduce the 
 slightest evidence in disproof of the allegation of 
 its having been caused by the agents of Govern- 
 ment. The general impression is, that, if the ear- 
 lier part of the case had been gone into, the whole 
 plot would be found to have originated with the 
 persons employed by Ministers in the different 
 districts. Of course I do not mean to say that it 
 is positively the case; but such is my belief, and 
 such is the impression on the public mind. My 
 hon. and learned Friends (the Attorney and So- 
 licitor Generals) appear to me, in the conduct of 
 these trials, to have discharged their duty towards 
 His Majesty's Ministers better than they have done 
 their duty to the public. If they were of opinion 
 that the suspicions which pervaded the country, 
 could be removed, the opportunity for so doing 
 was presented to them by the trials at Derby. 
 That was the place, and that the time, for entering 
 into the whole of the case, for explaining the 
 extent and nature of the conspiracy, and for jus- 
 tifying to the Country the suspension of the Ha- 
 beas Corpus, by proving the magnitude of the 
 danger which had called for it! By neglecting 
 to do so they have confirmed the suspicions 
 which the previous conduct of Ministers had every
 
 SRCRKT CO.MMITTFTK. 
 
 where excited, suspicions which it is folly to ima- 
 gine that a Committee by ballot can dispel. 
 
 " What, therefore, does my hon. and learned 
 Friend mean by saying- that the convictions at 
 Derby have justified the conduct of Ministers, and 
 shown the necessity of suspending the Habeas 
 Corpus? On the contrary, does not the fate of 
 that conspiracy amply demonstrate the adequacy 
 of our accustomed laws to the situation of the 
 Country? Notwithstanding the labours of Go- 
 vernment agents, notwithstanding the suggestions 
 and excitements to guilt, infused into the minds of 
 the people by spies and informers, by men, who 
 with the zeal of religious missionaries, but with a 
 very different design, went about propagating evil, 
 insinuating themselves into the confidence of the 
 poor and the distressed, visiting them at their 
 looms and forges, and with hypocritical sympathy 
 inflaming discontent to desperation, notwith- 
 standing all these aggravations of danger, have 
 not the ordinary tribunals the ordinary adminis- 
 tration of the -laws been found sufficient for the 
 suppression and punishment of guilt? I know 
 that Ministers are seldom slow to convert disaf- 
 fection to themselves into disaffection to- the Con- 
 stitution, or to reward, as for good services, those 
 who labour to convert the one into the other for 
 the purpose of afterwards betraying their victims. 
 
 " If we are to give credit to all that has been 
 said on. the other side of the House, there re no
 
 286 8KCRBT COMMITTEE. 
 
 course of events, which it is possible for the in- 
 genuity of man to contemplate, that would not 
 have justified the conduct of Ministers. Was the 
 public tranquillity restored? Its restoration was 
 of course owing to the suspension of the Habeas 
 Corpus. Did partial disturbances prevail? They 
 would have been ten times worse but for the ope- 
 ration of that wholesome and necessary measure. 
 Had popular turbulence or disaffection become 
 more general? That proved, beyond the possibi- 
 lity of a doubt, that must have convinced the 
 most sceptical, of the advantage of having armed 
 Ministers with unconstitutional power! 
 
 " Such has been the language of Ministers and 
 their advocates; but whatever effect it may have 
 had on a majority of the Members of this House, 
 it has failed to satisfy the Country. The public 
 expectation calls loudly for an inquiry into the 
 transactions of the last Session. It is only by a 
 fair and full explanation of every circumstance 
 connected with those events, that we can offer any 
 atonement for the danger of the precedent which 
 we have been induced to establish. Great as the 
 mass of individual suffering which has been expe- 
 rienced under the suspension of the Habeas Cor- 
 pus, numerous as the evils which have been in- 
 flicted on the wretched persons who have been 
 torn from the bosoms of their families and friends, 
 loaded with irons, and exposed to all the ri- 
 gours of arbitrary imprisonment, dreadful as 
 
 2
 
 SECRET COMMITTEE. 287 
 
 these things are, they are little when compared 
 with the mischief which has been done to the 
 Constitution. The poison of the example now 
 unhappily set, unless counteracted by some timely 
 antidote, will become the parent of still greater 
 evils in future times. It is the nature of every 
 new precedent to go beyond the old. It is one 
 of the consequences of once quitting the track of 
 the Constitution, that it leaves room for still 
 wider deviations. Let the House only consider 
 the influence of precedent. Let it say, whether 
 the Ministers of the Crown would, in the last 
 Session, have encountered the opposition which 
 was made to their demands, if any precedent for 
 conceding them under such circumstances had 
 been previously in existence? The powers re- 
 quired would in all probability have been conferred 
 as a mere matter of course. 
 
 " And are we not to apprehend the same con- 
 sequence in future times which former precedents 
 might have entailed on the present ? May we 
 not look forward to future Ministers anxious to in- 
 crease the power of the Crown ? May we not pic- 
 ture to ourselves even future Sovereigns, possibly 
 of the House of Brunswick, but acting upon the 
 principles of the Stuarts, who may be not unwill- 
 ing to avail themselves of such instruments, and to 
 imitate foreign despots rather than to reign in the 
 hearts of a free People? What a precedent has 
 been furnished to facilitate such designs by sus-
 
 288 SECRET COMMITTEE. 
 
 pending the Habeas Corpus at a period like that 
 of the last Session ! At a period, when there was 
 no war, no threatened invasion, no domestic 
 rebellion, no pretender to the Throne, no justi- 
 fying cause, or even pretext for such a measure 
 beyond those expressions of discontent which will 
 always break forth in a free country, when govern- 
 ed by a weak Administration, with whom the feel- 
 ings of the people are unable to sympathize! The 
 calamity which I dread may not perhaps occur 
 till the grave has closed over us and our conten- 
 tions. But are we, on that account, to lose sight 
 of the interests, the happiness, and the liberty of 
 succeeding generations ? 
 
 " It has been truly said by an hon. Baronet (Sir 
 Francis Burdett), that the Habeas Corpus might 
 as well have no existence, as be liable to such inter- 
 ruptions. Of what advantage is it to the subject 
 except in periods of agitation? In times of perfect 
 tranquillity a Government has no motive for de- 
 priving individuals of their liberty. It is when 
 Ministers grow unpopular by their misconduct, 
 when grievances are severely felt, and when the 
 prevailing discontents, as must always happen in a 
 free country, are loudly expressed, it is then that 
 this shield becomes necessary to the subject in 
 order to protect him from the vengeance of those 
 whose crimes or errors he has denounced, and who, 
 under the pretext of suppressing disaffection to the 
 State, are perhaps only intent on securing their
 
 STATE TRIALS IN SCOTLAND* 289 
 
 own power. Yet it is in such times, that this 
 Act, so just, so necessary to the freedom and 
 safety of the subject, this Act, which has given 
 to Englishmen, I may say> a privilege above all 
 other nations, may in future be taken away by 
 the precedent which has now been established for 
 the first time in the reign of George the Third, or 
 rather in the Regency of the Prince by whom he 
 is represented." 
 
 Sir Samuel Romilly, after a few further remarks 
 on the material change which measures of this 
 nature tended to effect in the English constitution 
 and character, concluded by again protesting both 
 against the proposed Committee, and the Bill of 
 Indemnity, which that Committee was to be the 
 instrument of Ministers in procuring. 
 
 The House divided : 
 
 For the Ballot 102 
 
 Against it -------- 29 
 
 Majority in favour of the Motion 73 
 
 STATE TRIALS IN SCOTLAND. 
 
 February Wth t 1818. 
 
 LORD Archibald Hamilton moved, "That there be 
 laid before the House, a Copy of such parts of 
 
 VOL. II. U
 
 290 STATE TRIALS IN SCOTLAND. 
 
 the Books of Adjournment of the High Court of 
 Justiciary in Scotland as contain the several Libels 
 or Indictments, and the Evidence, and the Verdict 
 and Judgment, and all other proceedings in the 
 case of Andrew M'Kinley, who was tried before 
 the said High Court of Justiciary, at Edinburgh, 
 on the 19th of July, in the year 1817." The 
 object of the noble Lord's Motion was to call the 
 attention of the House to the conduct of the Law 
 Officers of the Crown in Scotland, with respect to 
 a man of the name of Campbell, whom he charged 
 them with having tampered with and then pro- 
 duced as a Witness on the Trial of the said An- 
 drew M'Kinley. The Motion was supported by 
 Mr. J. P. Grant and Mr. W. Wynn, and opposed 
 by the Lord Advocate, and Lord Register of Scot- 
 land, Lord Castlereagh, &c. &c. Sir Samuel Ro- 
 milly said, that after the able, eloquent, and 
 unanswerable speech of his hon. and learned 
 Friend (Mr. J. P. Grant) he should have thought 
 it unnecessary to offer himself to the attention of 
 the House, but for the extraordinary confidence 
 with which the noble Lord (Castlereagh) had de- 
 fended the proceedings in question. The noble 
 Lord had talked of the record, as if it had been 
 on the table, and had argued against inquiry, be- 
 cause the facts of the case, which he had assumed, 
 were not sufficient to warrant condemnation. If 
 the Record was calculated to justify his Lordship's 
 view of the case, why did he not at once satisfy the
 
 STATE TRIALS IN SCOTLAND. 291 
 
 accusers, and vindicate his accused friends by the 
 production of it? 
 
 But the Lord Advocate had said, that any 
 inquiry instituted by the House of Commons 
 would be an unwarrantable interference with the 
 Courts of Justice, and would deprive those ag- 
 grieved of their remedy at law. Was there any 
 other lawyer in the House who would maintain 
 such a proposition? Besides, what actions could 
 be brought against the learned Lord? None cer- 
 tainly for injury done by the production of Camp- 
 bell as a Witness ; for his evidence had been re- 
 jected. The fate of Mr. Adam's Motion in the 
 case of Muir and Palmer had been referred to by 
 the learned Lord, as an authority to control the 
 decision of the House on this occasion. Whatever 
 value that case might possess in the eyes of many 
 of the Gentlemen opposite, it had not the merit of 
 being at all applicable to the case before th'em. 
 There, the Record of the Trial was required for 
 the purpose of arraigning, in point of law, the 
 proceedings of the Court of Justiciary; here, 
 the Record was wanted to explain the conduct 
 of the Law Officers as to certain facts which, in 
 the opinion of the Judges themselves, demanded 
 investigation. One of the Judges in particular 
 (Lord Gillies), after speaking to the inadmissibility 
 of the witness Campbell, inadmissibility, it was 
 to be remarked, not on account of incredibility, 
 but on account of the misconduct of the prosecu- 
 
 u2
 
 292 STATE TRIALS IN SCOTLAND. 
 
 tor, said, that, sitting as the Court was to try 
 M'Kinley, it could not. go into the matters stated 
 by Campbell, bat that it was, on many accounts, 
 desirable to have them further investigated. 
 This, however, could only be done in two ways; 
 either by a trial of Campbell for perjury, or by an 
 inquiry instituted by the House of Commons. 
 The first had not been attempted, not, however, 
 for the reasons pretended by the noble Lord (Cas- 
 tlereagh) not for the want of a sufficient number 
 of witnesses to contradict Campbell if his evi- 
 dence admitted of contradiction. Even the learn- 
 ed Lord (Advocate) had not ventured to assign 
 such a pretext. But whatever might be the cause, 
 the fact was, that no such proceeding had been 
 attempted, or was even in the contemplation of 
 the Law Officers. How then could the subject be 
 more properly investigated, than by the House of 
 Commons? 
 
 The whole of the noble Lord's (Castlereagh's) 
 argument tended to show that Campbell was an 
 incredible Witness. Sir Samuel Romilly saw no- 
 thing to detract, from his credibility. He had been 
 sworn, and might, if perjured, have been contra- 
 dicted by other Witnesses. No attempt, however, 
 had been made to contradict him, even by those 
 most interested in doing so ; and the House was 
 therefore bound to give some little credit to his 
 assertions. Why had not Sir William Rae been 
 examined? His evidence would have been most
 
 STATE TRIALS IN SCOTLAND. 293 
 
 material in throwing light on the transactions in 
 question, and was repeatedly called for by the 
 counsel for the Prisoner. Notwithstanding the 
 confidence of the noble Lord, Sir Samuel Rornilly 
 thought it required better authority than his to 
 show that Campbell's evidence was incredible. 
 
 The reasoning of another hon. Gentleman 
 (the Lord Register) on this subject was equally 
 unwarranted and inconclusive. He had spoken 
 of a contradiction in the deposition of Campbell 
 which did not exist. He stated him to have said, 
 that Mr. Drmmnond, though strongly impressed 
 with an opinion that he (Campbell) could not reside 
 with safety in any part of the kingdom, was still 
 desirous that he should accept the office of an 
 exciseman! But Campbell had stated no such 
 thing. He had merely said that he was afraid to 
 remain in Glasgow, or in any manufacturing town, 
 with which probably there might be a communi- 
 cation; and was this at all inconsistent with the 
 offer of a situation in some other part of the king- 
 dom? Had the learned Gentleman never heard 
 of a Scotsman having a place in the Excise out of 
 Scotland, in Cornwall for instance, or elsewhere 
 far enough removed from the dangers of Glasgow? 
 
 To come to another point, the result of the 
 trial. The learned Lord (Advocate) had told the 
 House, that the trial of M'Kinley proved the fact 
 of unlawful oaths having been administered at
 
 294 STATK TRIAL? IN SCOTLAND. 
 
 Glasgow, because the Verdict against him was 
 " not proven." He presumed that the House of 
 Commons, in its ignorance of Scotch law, would 
 be induced to believe that, "Not proven" meant 
 " proved!" By this verdict the learned Lord pre- 
 tended that the corpus delicti was clearly esta- 
 blished, and that nothing was wanting but to 
 bring home the guilt to the Panel. There was no 
 authority which could be cited for this interpreta- 
 tion. Neither Sir George Mackenzie, nor Hume, 
 nor Erskine, no, not even Burnet, for whom the 
 learned Lord seemed to entertain a still higher 
 veneration, gave any countenance to such a con- 
 struction. The meaning of the Verdict was, that 
 the facts were not established to the satisfaction of 
 the Jury. It was equivalent to the non liquet 
 of the Roman law, and was a middle course which 
 the Jury took when the case was not clear, either 
 as to the guilt or innocence of the Panel. All the 
 great law-writers of Scotland had declared that 
 "not proven" amounted to an acquittal, not 
 indeed an honourable acquittal, but an absolute 
 dismissal from the charge preferred; and yet the 
 learned Lord did not hesitate to say, that the un- 
 lawful oaths had been fully proved by the magical 
 words of " Not proven !" 
 
 The learned Lord had next endeavoured to 
 make a great deal of the communication between 
 the Prisoner and the Witness, Campbell ; but it 
 was his duty to facilitate the communication be-
 
 STATE TRIALS IN SCOTLAND. 295 
 
 tween Prisoners and Witnesses. By the law of 
 Scotland, the Prisoner was entitled to a list of all 
 the Witnesses, (a privilege allowed by the law of 
 England only in cases of High Treason); he 
 was also permitted to communicate with them, 
 that he might know beforehand what facts were 
 to be alleged against him. The noble Lord 
 (Castlereagh) had been pleased to describe this 
 as " a trick," as " a case got up " for a particular 
 purpose, and had called on the House to concur 
 with him in stifling all inquiry. Whatever might 
 be the decision of the House, the Country would 
 not see it in such a light. But even if the case 
 was as the noble Lord had represented it, still the 
 inquiry would not be, on that account, unneces- 
 sary. It was of importance to the Country that 
 every thing relating to the administration of cri- 
 minal Justice should be not only pure, but unsus- 
 pected. Could the House then resist an inquiry 
 into such a case a case which the Attorney Ge- 
 neral himself had declared he could not defend? 
 God forbid (that hon. and learned Gentleman had 
 said), God forbid, that he should go into Prisons 
 to communicate with Prisoners before they were 
 publicly brought to trial ! 
 
 But it was said that the duties of the Lord 
 Advocate were of a different description from those 
 of the Attorney General of England, that the 
 former was not only the public prosecutor, but the 
 head of the Police, and, in fact, the Grand Jury 
 
 u4
 
 296 STATE TRIALS IN SCOTLAND. 
 
 of the Country. It was his duty, however, to 
 protect Prisoners, and to see that no evidence 
 should be adduced against them, influenced either 
 by fear or hope. The law of Scotland differed 
 from that of England in this respect. The law of 
 England did not begin by examining a Witness as 
 to his fears and hopes ; but in Scotland the Wit- 
 nesses always went through that ordeal first. They 
 were required, previously to giving evidence, to 
 swear, that they had received no reward, nor pro- 
 mise, nor good deed (a very comprehensive word) 
 for giving evidence. 
 
 Let the House now see the situation of 
 Campbell. What description of evidence was to 
 be expected from a man so placed? Was it 
 nothing that he had been worked upon by the pro- 
 mise of reward on the one hand, and the threat of 
 death on the other? He was told that there were 
 six witnesses against him ; and as he knew the 
 mode which had been employed to obtain evidence, 
 he might also know that conscious innocence was 
 of no avail. The man said, " If I do give the 
 evidence required of me, I shall be perjured;"- 
 but when he considered that these six men were 
 also to be influenced, that on the one side a 
 shameful death might await him, and on the other 
 a fortune beyond his previous circumstances and 
 situation in life, could it be supposed that his tes- 
 timony would be unbiassed? And yet with these
 
 STATE TRIALS IN SCOTLAND. 297 
 
 powerful engines of hope and terror working- upon 
 him he was sent forth to give his evidence! 
 
 And what was the defence? Why, it was 
 asked by the noble Lord (Castlereagh) whether 
 the House would call on such a man as Mr. Home 
 Drurnmond to answer the testimony of such a 
 witness as Campbell? He (Sir S. Romilly) would 
 answer, Yes! There was no one in this Country 
 so high as to be screened from the obligation of 
 answering such a charge : he would, when jus- 
 tice required it, call on Mr. Home Drummond, 
 or even the noble Lord himself, he would say 
 that the noble Lord was wholly unfit for judicial 
 inquiry, if he was ignorant, that no man, be he 
 who he might, could decline to . answer a charge 
 thus preferred against him on oath. Those who 
 should be persuaded to refuse to Mr. Drummond 
 and the other Gentlemen implicated with him, 
 the power of vindicating themselves from this 
 charge, would do a great disservice to their cha- 
 racters. Nothing but an investigation could re-' 
 move from them a cloud of the worst suspicion, 
 the suspicion of unfair practices in cases where 
 the lives of their fellow-creatures were at stake. 
 The prevention of inquiry would subject them to 
 imputations for ever; and he, therefore, trusted 
 that on this ground at least, if on no other, the 
 House would not refuse that examination so neces- 
 sary to their vindication and credit.
 
 298 STATE TRIALS IX SCOTLAM>. 
 
 The House divided : 
 
 Ayes -------- 71 
 
 Noes --------136 
 
 Majority against the Motion - 65 * 
 
 * The substance of Campbell's deposition was, that he was 
 apprehended with the Prisoner M'Kinley about the 22d of Feb. 
 1817- That he was taken to be examined before the Sheriff 
 Depute of Lanarkshire; and being interrogated, if he knew 
 what he was brought there for, and answering that he did not, 
 the Sheriff said, it would be wisdom of him to make his breast 
 clean. That he was then left with Mr. Salmond (the Procurator 
 Fiscal), who said to him, "John, you perhaps do not know that 
 I know so much about this affair, I know more about it than 
 you think J do" That he was often closetted with Mr. Sal- 
 mond, who on one of these occasions, after using many entrea- 
 ties, and after railing at the Prisoners a$ villains who had betrayed 
 him (the Witness), said, " John, I assure you, that I have six men 
 who will swear that you took the oath, and you will be hanged as 
 sure as you are alive." That Mr. Salmond afterwards said that 
 the Lord Advocate was in Glasgow, and would come under any 
 obligation Campbell chose, if he would le a witness. That the 
 Deponent was soon afterwards removed to the castle of Edin- 
 burgh, where Mr. Home Drummond, the Advocate Depute, 
 came to him; and mentioned that M'Kinley had been served with 
 an Indictment, and that his (Campbell's) name was in the list of 
 witnesses, and that now was the time for him to determine whether 
 he would le a witness or not. That the Deponent stated, that he 
 did rot wish to be a witness, and that he, Mr. Drummond, knew 
 that if he was, he need not go back to Glasgow, as he could not 
 live there. That Mr. Drummond said, that he was quite sen- 
 sible of that, but that he might go and reside somewhere else, 
 and that he might change his name ; that Campbell said he 
 would not change his name, and that it would be much the
 
 STATE TRIALS IX SCOTLAND. 299 
 
 same if he lived in any other manufacturing place as in Glas- 
 gow That Mr. Drummond then said, that lie had been thinking 
 of a plan of writing to Lord Sidmouth to get him into the Excise, 
 and that if Campbell chose, he would write to Lord Sidmouth, and 
 show him his answer. That the Deponent declined this offer on 
 account of the risk and ill-will to which it might expose him. 
 
 That at the next interview, Mr. Drummcnd asked Campbell 
 what he wanted to have. That he (Campbell) remained silent, 
 and that Mr. Drummond then said, that, if he would give such, 
 information as would please the Lord Advocate, he should neither 
 te tried himself nor made a witness. That Campbell having 
 hesitated about complying with Mr. Drummond's request, that 
 Gentleman called again, in the course of a few days, to ask him 
 if he bad made up his mind. That the Deponent said he had 
 upon conditions ; and on being asked what these conditions were, 
 he said that he wished to get a passport to go to the Continent, 
 but that, being a mechanic, he was afraid the laws of the Country 
 would not allow him to go. That Mr. Drummond replied with a 
 smile, " Is that all ? There is no question but you will get that, 
 and means to carry you there" That Campbell then said, that 
 upon these conditions he would be a witness, provided his wife 
 was also taken into consideration. That Mr. Drummond ac- 
 quiesced in this ; and that finally the Procurator Fiscal of Glasgow 
 was written to on the subject, by the Lord Advocate's desire. 
 
 That an examination afterwards took place IN THE PRE- 
 SENCE OP THE SHERIFF, THE SHERIFF SUBSTITUTE, THE 
 
 SOLICITOR GENERAL, A CLERK, THE PROCURATOR FISCAL 
 
 OF EDINBURGH, AND MR. DRUMMOND, at which Mr. Drum- 
 mond asked Campbell, what he had to say in the business ? 
 That Campbell answered, that supposing he was concerned in the 
 affair, and was to tell the whole truth, he did not consider him- 
 self or his wife safe, and that without his getting a passport to 
 go to the Continent, and the means of carrying him there, 
 he could not be a witness ; upon which Mr. Drummond turning 
 to the Solicitor General, said, " Answer you that." That the 
 Solicitor General then ordered the clerk to write down words to the 
 
 3
 
 300 STATE TRIALS IN SCOTLAND. 
 
 following effect " Whereupon the Solicitor General assures the 
 Defendant that every means necessary will be taken to preserve 
 him and his wife, and that he will get a passport to go to the 
 Continent, and the means to carry him there." That the Sheriff 
 (Sir William Rae), who had been walking up and down the room, 
 was desired to sign the paper ; but that, after perusing and 
 considering it for some time, he refused to sign it, adding, 
 that, as he was an Officer of the Crown, it was his duty to see 
 justice done ; and he could assure the witness, if he was to sign 
 that paper, he would not le answerable for it for a good deal ; 
 for that if the Deponent was brought to his oath, and should 
 swear that he had received no promise of reward, and this paptr 
 signed, he would perjure himself. That the witness answered, 
 No j if it was considered a means of his preservation ; upon which 
 he was supported in the same argument by Mr. Di ummond. 
 That the Sheriff, however, persisted in his refusal to sign any 
 such paper, and that Mr. Drummond then proposed, that it 
 should be put down, that CampL-ell was to have the means of 
 going to some of the British Colonies, instead of going to a foreign 
 kingdom ; but that the Sheriff also refused that, and added, that 
 he was willing every thing should be set down for the preserva- 
 tion of Campbell and his wife, but nothing more. That Mr. 
 Drummond then said, " Campbell, you know whether you can 
 be a witness on these terms, or not." That the witness remained 
 silent ; and some time after Mr. Drummond said, Now, Camp- 
 bell, do you believe that we can do that for you which you ex- 
 pect, without its being set down in the paper?" That Campbell 
 answered, that he knew they were able, if they were willing, 
 to which Mr. Drummond replied, Could he rely upon them for 
 that? That Campbell said, " May I?" and that Mr. Drum- 
 mond answered, " You maj-," and Campbell rejoined, " Well, 
 then, I shall rely upon you as Gentlemen." 
 
 Such is the substance of Campbell's deposition on the trial of 
 
 M'Kinley. Though his testimony, if false, might have been 
 
 contradicted in so many particulars by so many witnesses, by 
 
 the Sheriff of Edinburgh, the Sheriff Depute, th Solicitor 
 
 f
 
 SPIES AND INFORMERS. 301 
 
 General, the Procurators Fiscal of Glasgow and Edinburgh, 
 &c. &c. no attempt of the kind has ever been made ! On the 
 contrary, we see Lord A. Hamilton's Motion for an inquiry into 
 this charge, resisted by the very friends of the persons who were 
 implicated in it, and who, if innocent, ought to have been 
 anxious for an opportunity of vindicating their aspersed cha- 
 racter!. 
 
 SPIES AND INFORMERS. 
 
 February 11*A, 1818. 
 
 MR. Fiizalierly moved, " That it be an instruc- 
 tion to the Committee of Secrecy, to inquire 
 whether any and what measures had been taken to 
 detect and bring to justice those persons de- 
 scribed in the Report of the 8th of June, who 
 may by their language and conduct have encou- 
 raged those designs of which it was intended they 
 should only be the instruments of detection." 
 The Motion was supported by Lord Milton and 
 Mr. Bennett, and opposed by Mr. Bathurst, Mr. 
 C. Grant, and the Solicitor General. Mr. Wil- 
 berforce reprobated the employment of Spies and 
 Informers in the most emphatic manner. The 
 practice was as injurious to the best interests of 
 the Country and the Constitution as it was repug- 
 nant to every principle of Morality and Religion.
 
 SPIES AND INFORMERS. 
 
 The Goil of truth abhorred falsehood and deceit ! 
 Mr. Wilberforce, however, was against the Motion, 
 because it involved an inquiry that could not well 
 be carried on in the Committee. 
 
 Sir Samuel Rornilly expressed his surprise at the 
 course pursued by the two last speakers, who had 
 addressed themselves more to the mode of inquiry 
 than to the substance of the charges. His lion. 
 Friend, the Member for Bramber (Mr. Wilber- 
 force), had objected to refer the inquiry to the 
 Committee of Secrecy, and his -learned Friend, 
 the Solicitor General, had contented himself with 
 endeavouring to show that the passage in the Report 
 to which the Motion alluded, did not bear the con- 
 struction put upon it, so as to render a reference 
 to the Committee necessary. He himself had 
 no particular desire that the proposed examina- 
 tion should be referred to the Committee of Se- 
 crecy. Indeed, after what had been said by the 
 noble Member for Yorkshire (Lord Milton), that 
 he stood alone in the Secret Committee*, and that 
 
 * The Committee consisted of the following names : Viscount 
 Milton, Lord G. Cavendish, Mr. Williams Wynn, Viscount 
 Castlereagh, Mr. Balhurst, Mr. Lambe, Sir A. Pigott, Sir W. 
 Scott, Sir J. Nicholl, the Attorney and Solicitor General, Mr. 
 Canning, Mr. Yorke, Mr. Egerton, Mr. Wilberforce, Mr. 
 Bootle Wilbraham, Mr. W. Dundas, Mr. Peel, Sir W. Curtis, 
 and Admiral Frank. Of these the only Members who had voted 
 with Lord Milton in resisting the suspension of the Constitutional 
 Liberty, were Lord G. Cavendish, and Sir A. Pigolt, both of
 
 SPlSfi AND INFORMERS. 303 
 
 he merely attended it, because he wished to fulfil 
 a duty imposed on him by the House, and not 
 with any hopes of doing good in it, he (Sir S. 
 Romilly) would have preferred another mode of 
 inquiry. Some inquiry, however, was absolutely 
 necessary; and he should vote for his hon. 
 Friend's Motion, because it was the only mode 
 which had been yet suggested for sifting the al- 
 leged charges. 
 
 After the charges which the House had heard 
 from his hon. Friend (Mr. Bennett) that night, 
 with the pledge which he had given of substanti- 
 ating them, if he was allowed an opportunity 
 by witnesses on oath, he thought the House could 
 not refuse inquiry, he might say in the language 
 of his hon. Friend, that the House could not, 
 that for the sake of its own consistency and cha- 
 racter, it dared not resist an inquiry into the 
 truth of these allegations. The Parliament was 
 drawing near to a dissolution. How could the 
 Members composing it, turn a deaf ear to such 
 grave charges, and yet venture to meet their Consti- 
 tuents? " The Solicitor General" (continued Sir 
 8. Romilly) " seems to imagine that he has got quit 
 of these charges by asserting that they have come 
 
 whom as it was understood at the time of the ballot, were 
 unable to attend the Committee. Such a list is alone sufficient 
 to explain both the system of Ballot, and the history of Parlia- 
 mentary Reports, and Bills of Indemnity.
 
 304 SPIES AND INFORMERS. 
 
 from a polluted source. Suspecting the narrative 
 to have been furnished by a person of the name of 
 Mitchell, who was arrested by Government on 
 suspicion of Treason, the learned Gentleman has 
 forsooth described it as coming from a polluted 
 source! Mitchell was arrested on the 21st of 
 June ; and because he has been so arrested no 
 matter on what evidence his testimony there- 
 fore is inadmissible and his oath discredited. 
 The learned Gentleman has thus found out a new 
 expedient for the use of Government ; he has 
 promulgated on his own high authority, as one of 
 the first Law Officers of the Crown, an improved 
 mode of disqualifying any witness who may pre- 
 sume to appear against His Majesty's Ministers. 
 According to this plan, Government has only to 
 throw the obnoxious individual into prison, and 
 his evidence at once ceases to be any longer cre- 
 dible. The moment he is taken up, he will lose 
 not only his liberty, but his character, and can 
 never afterwards be believed. Is this a principle 
 to be endured in a free, or indeed in any Country? 
 Once adopt it, and every Minister will find it 
 his interest to take the widest possible range of 
 accusation, as the most effectual step towards his 
 own security. I have dwelt more strongly on 
 what has fallen from the Solicitor General on this 
 subject, because it was not a mere inadvertent 
 phrase (like that of my hon. Friend, when he 
 used the words illegal acts, as applied to Treason),
 
 SPIES AND INFORMERS. 305 
 
 but had been frequently repeated by him in the 
 course of his argument. 
 
 " But, then, according to the suspicions of 
 the learned Gentleman, there are two other con- 
 tributors besides Mitchell to the narrative of my 
 hon. Friend (Mr. Bennet) persons of the name 
 of Pendrill and Stephen, who were not impri- 
 soned, but have fled to America. Their evidence 
 is consequently of the same dye and quality, 
 and as little to be trusted, as that of Mitchell. 
 What however will the House think of the con- 
 jectures and arguments of the learned Gentle- 
 man, when it finds that the persons thus alluded 
 to, these supposed instructors of my hon. 
 Friend, had left England before the events men- 
 tioned in the narrative are stated to have taken 
 place ? But is it by such reasoning as that of the 
 learned Gentleman that these serious charges can 
 be refuted? Will the Government be acquit- 
 ted of them by the Country upon the mere al- 
 legation that they have proceeded from a polluted 
 source? When my hon. Friend, with his high 
 character for honour and integrity, comes forward, 
 and says that he can support these charges upon 
 oath, that he has inquired into the testimony 
 on which they are founded, and believes it to be 
 entitled to credit, I again repeat, that the House 
 will not dare, in the face of the public, to resist 
 inquiry. 
 
 " The lion, and learned Gentleman has ad- 
 
 VOL. II. X
 
 306 SPIES AND INFORMERS. 
 
 verted to the trials at Derby in refutation of the 
 narrative of my hon. Friend. He says that it ap- 
 peared on the trial of Brandreth, that meetings of 
 the conspirators had taken place before the 26th 
 of May, and he wishes this statement to go forth 
 to the public as a satisfactory answer to the charge 
 against Oliver, of having arranged the plan of in- 
 surrection for the 9th of June. Now, not one 
 word came out in evidence, that any plots had 
 been formed before the 26th of May. Indeed the 
 testimony of the witnesses examined did not refer 
 to any proceedings anterior to the 8th of June. 
 The Solicitor General has asked, why the pri- 
 soners did not call Oliver? Because it was im- 
 possible. Indeed he himself admits this. But 
 again he asks why, when they were brought up 
 for judgment, did they not say that Oliver had 
 misled them ? Does my learned Friend mean to 
 insinuate, that if they had done so, they would 
 have obtained mercy ? If he wanted their avowal 
 of that fact, he had it from them in their last 
 moments, at a time when they could have no 
 hope, no object to serve by the declaration. 
 The prisoners, who were all men of a strong re- 
 ligious turn, declared with their latest breath 
 that Oliver had brought them to their fate. If the 
 Solicitor General did not believe them then, would 
 he have believed them when they were brought up 
 for judgment? 
 
 " The learned Gentleman has treated my hon. 
 Friend (Mr. Bennet) most unfairly. The turn so
 
 SPIES AND INFORMERS. 307 
 
 invidiously given to his speech is equally un- 
 merited and unjustifiable. It was not pretended 
 by him, and no man could so have understood 
 him, that the prisoners at Derby were not guilty of 
 crimes for which they deserved death by law. 
 Brandreth had actually committed murder, and 
 the others, as implicated with him, have not less 
 deservedly suffered. No man of common candour 
 could have so mistaken and misrepresented my 
 hon. Friend. It looked like an intention on the 
 part of the learned Solicitor General to throw a 
 stain upon an honourable and unblemished indivi- 
 dual, an attempt to prove that he was a sub- 
 orner of improper evidence. [The SOLICITOR 
 GENERAL said that he had not used the word 
 f suborner'] Unquestionably not, but his lan- 
 guage implies as much. It tends to impress the 
 world with a belief, that my hon. Friend has ex- 
 amined witnesses, and taken evidence from pol- 
 luted sources, that he has, as it were, made com- 
 mon cause with traitors and murderers by justify- 
 ing their crimes. [' No ; no ;' from the SOLICITOR 
 GENERAL.] Perhaps the expression of the hon. and 
 learned Gentleman has not been quite so strong, 
 and perhaps he will have the goodness to explain 
 presently what it was he did say, to which 
 may certainly be applied the mitigated phrase, 
 that it seemed dictated by some degree of malig- 
 nity. 
 
 "The hon. Gentleman who spoke last (Mr. 
 x2
 
 308 SPIES AND INFORMERS. 
 
 Wilberforce) has reprobated with the greatest 
 warmth the employment of Spies and Informers 
 under any circumstances. I am not casuist enough 
 to be able at this moment to decide whether their 
 assistance ought never to be required, whether 
 there may, or may not, possibly exist cases in 
 which private treachery may be encouraged for 
 the sake of discovering public guilt. But if I do 
 not at once acquiesce in the opinion of the hon. 
 Gentleman to its full extent, I am further, much 
 further from agreeing with the noble Lord (Castle- 
 reagh) who on a former occasion not only justified, 
 but applauded, the use of such instruments. It is 
 singular, however, thinking as the hon. Member 
 does, that they are the pests of society, that 
 they betray the confidence of friendship and 
 break the ties of blood, that they take advantage 
 of the wants and woes of their fellow-citizens, and 
 lead them on under the colour of co-operation, 
 from discontent to sedition, and from sedition to 
 treason, it is singular that with these opinions 
 the hon. Gentleman should object to the present 
 Motion, that, upon a matter so imperiously de- 
 manding investigation, he should resist all inquiry. 
 Would not this reference to the Committee at 
 least tend to diminish the use of Spies, and to re- 
 move a plague from the bosoms of the peaceful 
 and well-disposed inhabitants of the Country? 
 And would not this result alone, in the eyes of the 
 hon. Member, be a lasting benefit conferred upon
 
 SP1KS AND INFORMERS. 309 
 
 the Country, and an agreeable service to the God 
 of truth ? 
 
 " The hon. Member has expressed a wish to 
 hear Oliver tell his own story ; and why cannot 
 this be done before the Committee? Does he 
 think that the unhappy man will be unequally 
 matched, that. he will not meet with due support 
 from the noble Lord and his other friends upon 
 the Committee? But the hon. Gentleman has 
 spoken of a prosecution. Does he mean that it 
 should be undertaken by private individuals, and 
 that Government, the public prosecutor in all 
 other cases, should defend instead of accuse? 
 If the hon. Gentleman is sincere in his desires to 
 have this matter investigated before a competent 
 tribunal, and to have Oliver prosecuted for the 
 crimes he is supposed to have committed, what 
 more effectual step can be taken towards the ac- 
 complishment of that object than the proposed in- 
 quiry? But no it is not the punishment of 
 Oliver which is wanted by those using these argu- 
 ments. Many of the Members of this House, we 
 are told, entertain even a good opinion of him. 
 They thought him, when before the last Com- 
 mittee, not sufficiently wicked for a spy. He ap- 
 peared to them a bungler in his business, and not 
 to have * snatched that grace beyond the reach of 
 arC which accomplished villains boast ! But has 
 it never occurred to the hon. Gentlemen who thus 
 bear testimony to his character, that the man 
 
 x 3
 
 310 SPIES AND INFORMERS. 
 
 who has been so successful in deceiving his ene- 
 mies, may perhaps also be able to impose on his 
 friends ? 
 
 " Recollecting the thinness of the House when 
 the hon. Member for Shrewsbury made his im- 
 portant statement, and observing the crowded 
 state of the benches now,, let me entreat the 
 hon. Gentlemen on all sides to pause and deli- 
 berate before they reject this Motion. Can they 
 reconcile to themselves the refusal of an inves- 
 tigation without having heard the grounds on 
 which the demand for it has been rested? 
 Will they venture to risk the impression which 
 may be made by the rejection of this Motion 
 on the . public and on their Constituents ? I 
 will not now occupy more of the time of the 
 House ; but if the proposition of this night is 
 negatived by the majority, which I fear, I trust 
 that the hon. Member for Bramber (and no man 
 can do it with more weight) will, on an early day, 
 come forward with a Motion consistent with his 
 speech, to inquire into the recent encouragement 
 which has been given by Ministers to a set of men, 
 whose employment is destructive of the happi- 
 ness, the morality, and the religion of the com- 
 munity." 
 
 The House divided : 
 
 Ayes -----..-53 
 Noes Ill 
 
 Majority against the Motion 58
 
 GRIEVANCES UNDER THE SUSPENSION ACT, 311 
 
 GRIEVANCES UNDER THE SUSPENSION ACT. 
 
 February 17th, 1818. 
 
 LORD Folkstone moved for the appointment of a 
 Committee to inquire into the truth of the allega- 
 tions in the Petitions of Francis Ward, William 
 Benbow, and others *, who had been imprisoned 
 under the Act for the Suspension of the Habeas 
 Corpus. The Motion was opposed by Lord Cas- 
 tlereagh, who described Ward as a wretch tainted 
 with the most atrocious crimes, and wholly un- 
 worthy of the slightest belief -J-. After a debate 
 in which Mr. J. Smith, Mr. Gordon, Sir Francis 
 Burdett, Mr. Wilberforce, and others, bore a part, 
 Sir Samuel Romilly rose and said, that a Bill of 
 Indemnity being about to be passed, the question 
 for the consideration of the House then was, 
 whether it should be done without an inquiry 
 into the gross abuses of power imputed to Minis- 
 ters. Why should not these Petitions be referred 
 to the Committee then sitting, or, if that was 
 
 * For copies of these Petitions see Hansards Parliamentary 
 Debates, vol. xxxvii.; and Evans's Parliamentary Reports, vol. ii. 
 
 f Ward afterwards brought an action against the editor of the 
 Observer newspaper for printing and circulating Lord Castle- 
 rcagh's statement, and obtained uOO/. damages. 
 
 x 4
 
 312 GRIEVANCES UNDER THE SUSPENSION ACT. 
 
 so constituted as to be able to examine witnesses 
 only on one side to receive, as a new sort of 
 Grand Jury, all evidence for the accused, and 
 none for the accuser, why might they not be sent 
 to some other more efficient and impartial tribu- 
 nal? It was asserted that unnecessary severity 
 had been employed, that persons had been drag- 
 ged about the country in fetters, as proofs to the 
 inhabitants of an existing plot. Could any sub- 
 ject be more worthy of Parliamentary interposition 
 and inquiry ? 
 
 " My principal object in rising" (continued Sir 
 Samuel Rornilly) " is to refute the statement of a 
 noble Lord (Castlereagb), in the humble hope of 
 being thus able to influence some few votes, in the 
 division of this night. The noble Lord has said, 
 that the sufferers, if the facts contained in their 
 Petitions are true, will not be deprived of their 
 legal remedy, and that there will be nothing in 
 the Bill of Indemnity, to preclude them from 
 proceeding by action in the ordinary courts of 
 law. How unfounded this assertion is, appears 
 from his Lordship's next sentence, in which he 
 tells us, that the Bill of Indemnity now required 
 will be in all respects the same as that of 1801. 
 Now, the very first clause of that Bill expressly 
 enacts ' that all personal actions heretofore brought, 
 or which may be hereafter commenced or brought, 
 against any person on account of any act, matter, 
 or thing done, recommended, directed^ ordered,
 
 GRIEVANCES UNDER THE SUSPENSION ACT. 313 
 
 or advised to be done, for apprehending 1 , imprison- 
 ing, or detaining in custody any person suspected 
 of High Treason, shall be discharged and made 
 void.' It is clear, therefore, that the parties who 
 have so severely suffered will be deprived of all 
 redress, if the Bill of Indemnity in question shall 
 be adopted. 
 
 " I will now say a few words on the Petitions 
 themselves. There are, I believe, eleven of them 
 from different persons in different parts of the 
 kingdom, and containing different allegations. 
 Suppose that some of these should be proved to 
 contain false charges, is it therefore consistent 
 with justice that the others should be dismissed 
 without examination? Suppose that some of the 
 acts described by the Petitioners, such as solitary 
 imprisonment, such as the transfer of prisoners 
 from one gaol to another, without any apparent 
 necessity, should not be absolutely illegal, does 
 it necessarily follow, that they may not be, on every 
 principle, grossly inhuman and unjust? The noble 
 Lord has evidently made preparations for the de- 
 bate of this evening, but after all his labours he 
 has only ventured to impugn two or three out of 
 the eleven Petitions before the House. And yet he 
 calls on the House equally to reject the considera- 
 tion of all! The contradiction which he may 
 have given to Ward or Haynes is no reason for 
 excluding the other Petitioners from attention and 
 redress. Such a doctrine cannot be maintained
 
 314 GRIEVANCES UNDER THE SUSPENSION ACT. 
 
 by any just or rational man. For instance, why 
 should the fallacy of the other statements let it 
 be admitted to exist to any extent the noble Lord 
 requires why should the imputed misrepresenta- 
 tions of others be allowed to prejudice the case 
 of that wretched man Ogden, who at the age 
 of 74, and in a state of lamentable disease, has 
 been loaded with fetters like a common felon? 
 There is at least some ground for believing that 
 his Petition contains truth, for he has referred to 
 the surgeon, Mr. Dixon, who attended and cured 
 him of the complaint, produced, or at least griev- 
 ously aggravated, by the weight of his fetters. I 
 will ask my hon. Friend (Mr. Wilberforce) whe- 
 ther he thinks it just to dismiss this Petition, this 
 uncontradicted charge of cruelty and oppression, 
 without either inquiry or redress? - There are 
 seven other cases which stand on the same foot- 
 ing, particularly those relating to the prisons of 
 Gloucester and Lincoln. Against the truth of 
 these not one syllable has been uttered; and when 
 I consider the extraordinary pains which have been 
 taken by the noble Lord to refute the statements 
 contained in some of the Petitions, I cannot but 
 conclude that those which have not been impeach- 
 ed, are, on this very account, unimpeachable. 
 Silence is to me a proof that nothing can be said 
 against them. As to the denial given by a gaoler 
 to the statement of a Petitioner, nothing can be 
 more absurd than the production of such tcsti-
 
 GRIEVANCES UNDER THE SUSPENSION ACT. 315 
 
 mony. In what Court would it avail for the ac- 
 quittal of the accused, that he had himself denied 
 the truth of the accusation? 
 
 " An hon. Baronet (Sir Francis Burdett) has 
 founded a very just argument on the conduct of 
 this House with respect to Aris, the Governor of the 
 Coldbath Fields Prison. The hon. Member, how- 
 ever, who spoke last (Mr. Wilberforce), instead 
 of answering 1 , has completely mistaken the object 
 of the hon. Baronet's observation. The hon. Ba- 
 ronet had intended no imputation on him, when 
 he alluded to his testimony in favour of the huma- 
 nity of Aris. He only inferred, and surely with 
 great justice, that if a Member of such integrity 
 and sagacity had been imposed on in that case, 
 it is not impossible, that the Gentlemen who have 
 spoken this night in such high terms of the differ- 
 ent gaolers, may have been equally deceived. 
 What then is the deduction from this argument of 
 the hon. Baronet? Surely not, as the hon. Mem- 
 ber for Bramber has contended, that no inquiry" is 
 necessary, but that the strictest examination shall 
 be instituted without delay. Aris, notwitlistand- 
 ing the numerous testimonies to his character in 
 this House, was afterwards convicted of the 
 grossest delinquencies; and it is not impossible 
 that similar results may follow from similar inqui- 
 ries on the present occasion. My hon. Friend 
 (Mr. Wilberforce) observed on a former night, 
 that if any Member could pledge his belief, a
 
 316 GRIEVANCES UNDER THE SUSPENSION ACT, 
 
 belief derived from his own personal observations, 
 as to the truth of any of these alleged abuses, 
 he should be ready to support an inquiry. ' Why ' 
 he asked the Member for Shrewsbury who had 
 brought forward some case of enormity * why 
 had not he himself taken the pains to make in- 
 quiries and to examine witnesses as to the truth of 
 the charge?' The hon. Member for Shrewsbury 
 answered, that he had examined, that he hud 
 himself seen and questioned the witnesses in per- 
 son! And yet my hon. Friend,, instead of being 
 satisfied with this compliance with his own desire 
 and sense of justice, thought proper to vote 
 against the Motion so founded and so supported ! 
 I trust, however, that my hon. Friend will yet re- 
 trace his steps. I hope he has repented of that 
 vote, and will yet make amends. 
 
 " With respect to the character of one of the 
 Petitioners, I mean that of Ward, it certainly 
 appears to be bad. The only wonder indeed is, if 
 he is as criminal as he has been represented, that 
 he has not long ago been brought to justice. It is 
 said, that previous to the Suspension Act he was in 
 gaol on a charge of felony. If this be the case, I 
 should like to know why he has not been tried, 
 why, if the case required it, his life has not been 
 sacrificed to the ends of justice? But this has 
 nothing to do with the allegations in the Petition, 
 many of which, notwithstanding the mighty pre- 
 parations made by the noble Lord for the purpose
 
 GRIEVANCES UNDER THE SUSPENSION ACT. 317 
 
 of contradiction, have been left completely unan- 
 swered. What explanation, for instance, has been 
 given of that part of Ward's Petition which relates 
 to the hardships he endured in the castle of Ox- 
 f or d 3 to his confinement during four out of every 
 eight days in a loathsome cell, from which he was 
 thus alternately taken, because it was almost im- 
 possible for him to exist in it more than four days 
 at a time? And yet for all this, and for similar 
 abuses of power, an indemnity is to be granted to 
 the authors, and the Report which is to warrant 
 this indemnity, is to come from a Committee, be- 
 fore which, while the accused bring such evi- 
 dence only as they please, the accusers are not 
 allowed to bring any evidence at all! 
 
 " As to the personal virtues of Lord Sidmouth, 
 of which the House has heard so much, I shall be 
 always, I hope, disposed to render them the jus- 
 tice which they deserve. But is this any answer 
 to the charges which have been preferred against 
 him, this night, in his capacity of Secretary of 
 State for the Home Department? Is his character, 
 however exemplary, to preclude all inquiry into 
 the alleged misconduct of his agents? If the 
 public administration of the noble Lord has been 
 at all consistent with his private worth, if the 
 charges preferred are either unfounded fabrica- 
 tions, or the acts of subordinate ministers un- 
 known to or unwarranted by their superior, ad- 
 mitting either of these suggestions to be the fact, 
 
 2
 
 318 GRIEVANCES UNDER THB SUSPENSION ACT. 
 
 the House is equally bound to go into this in- 
 vestigation. Let it be the falsehood of his accu- 
 sers, or the misconduct of his agents, that is the 
 source of these charges, the Count ly, the House, 
 the friends of the noble Secretary himself, are all 
 equally interested in having them thoroughly ex- 
 amined and explained. I will not say, that all 
 the facts stated in the different Petitions, suppos- 
 ing them all to be proved, are in themselves ab- 
 solutely illegal; but I will say that they are unne- 
 cessary and wanton abuses of power. What can 
 be imagined more cruel than that of which some 
 of these unhappy men complain, the privation of 
 freedom and food, of sleep and health ? What 
 could be a greater mockery and insult than pa- 
 rading them from town to town, in open daylight, 
 and loaded with chains? What, possible object 
 could be answered by such a wretched triumph, 
 except to promote alarm, except to convince a 
 few miserable minds, that some extraordinary plot 
 existed against the State? Ward, whose case has 
 been principally canvassed this night, was so taken 
 through the country, chained to his fellow Peti- 
 tioner Haynes. But the latter, according to the 
 noble Lord, acknowledged some obligations to 
 one of the officers by whom he was conducted in 
 these journeys. That some humanity may have 
 been shown by the officer alluded to, and felt by 
 Haynes, is not improbable. It is also probable 
 that the conduct of some gaolers may have been 
 
 3
 
 GRIEVANCES UNDER THE SUSPENSION ACT. 319 
 
 equally humane. But does this alter the case in 
 favour of Ministers, or prove the necessity of car- 
 rying about these wretched men, as spectacles of 
 derision or alarm to the whole country? In my 
 conscience, I could almost believe that one of the 
 main reasons for such a proceeding, was to find 
 the gaoler most likely to conform to the views and 
 wishes of the Ministers by whom the Petitioners 
 had been arrested. 
 
 " An hon. Friend of mine (Mr. Wilberforce) 
 has thought proper, in one part of his speech, to 
 pass a glowing eulogium on the suspension of the 
 Habeas Corpus, and has referred to the history of 
 an ancient republic, in illustration of the advan- 
 tages of suspended liberty; but has my hon. 
 Friend forgotten the consequences of those occa- 
 sional dictatorships which he has held up as ex- 
 amples to this country? Did they not at last end 
 in a perpetual dictatorship in a tyranny never to 
 be shaken off? For my own part I believe most 
 firmly, before God, that these frequent and unjus- 
 tifiable suspensions of the Constitution will un- 
 less the House of Commons shall do its duty, 
 which it has not hitherto done end in the com- 
 plete ruin of our liberties." 
 
 The House divided: 
 
 Ayes --------58 
 
 Noes 167 
 
 Majority against the Motion 109
 
 320 PRIVATELY STEALING IN SHOPS, &C. 
 
 PRIVATELY STEALING IN SHOPS, &c. 
 
 SIR Samuel Romilly moved that the Act of the 
 10th & llth of William III. c. 23, intituled, 
 " An Act for the better apprehending, prosecuting, 
 and punishing of Felons that commit Burglary, 
 Housebreaking, or Robbery in Shops, Warehouses, 
 Coach-houses, or Stables, or that steal Horses," 
 should be entered as read. This having been 
 done, he rose again, and spoke to the following 
 effect : " Sir, I rise for the purpose of moving for 
 leave to bring in a Bill to repeal so much of the 
 Act of the 10th & llth of William III. as takes 
 away the benefit of Clergy from persons convicted 
 of privately stealing goods, wares, or merchan- 
 dises, of the value of five shillings, in any Shop, 
 Warehouse, Coach-house, or Stable. In renewing 
 a Motion on which the opinion of this House has 
 been repeatedly expressed, it will be unnecessary 
 for me to trouble it at any length. The Bill for 
 which I am about to move has passed the House 
 of Commons four times; twice in the late, and 
 twice in the present, Parliament. On the last oc- 
 casion, I may say, that it passed unanimously; 
 not a single voice being heard in opposition to it. 
 Yet in each instance it was rejected by the House 
 of Lords.
 
 PRIVATELY STEALING IN SHOPS, &c. 321 
 
 " In proposing once more the alteration of this 
 law, I must be permitted, in confirmation of my 
 former arguments on the subject, to call the atten- 
 tion of the House to the returns which have been 
 for some days on the table. These returns, 
 which contain the number of criminals appre- 
 hended, tried, convicted, and executed during a 
 period of twelve years, clearly demonstrate the 
 state of the law on this subject, and the extreme 
 variance which must ever exist between its prac- 
 tice and its principle. Such indeed is its sangui- 
 nary nature, that it never can be executed. In the 
 course of twelve years, from the end of 1805 to. 
 that of 1817, six hundred and Jifty-Jive persons 
 have been indicted for the offence of stealing pri- 
 vately in shops property to the value of five shil- 
 lings. Of these, one hundred and seventy-seven 
 were acquitted; one hundred and thirteen capi- 
 tally convicted; and not one executed. In the 
 remaining three hundred and sixty-Jive cases, the 
 Juries, either finding that the property was not ot 
 the value of five shillings, or that it was not stolen 
 privately, acquitted the prisoners of the capital 
 part of the charge, but found them guilty of 
 simple larceny. It is evident, therefore, either 
 that these three hundred and sixty-five persons 
 have been improperly charged with a capital of- 
 fence, or that the Juries, influenced by feelings of 
 humanity, have in so many instances violated 
 their oaths. It is true, there are high authorities 
 
 VOL. II.. Y
 
 322 PRIVATELY STEALING IN SHOPS, &C. 
 
 in justification of this conduct on the part of 
 Jurors, of this kind of pious perjury, as Mr. 
 Justice Blackstone is pleased to call it. That 
 learned Judge, after adverting to the complaint of 
 Sir Henry Spelman, that whilst every thing else 
 was risen in its nominal value, and become dearer, 
 the life of man had continually grown cheaper, 
 goes on to remark, that the mercy of Juries will 
 often make them strain a point, and bring in the 
 thing stolen to be under the value laid in the in- 
 dictment, when it is really of much greater value. 
 And this, he adds, is evidently justifiable and 
 proper when it only reduces the present nominal 
 value of money to the ancient standard *. In op- 
 position, however, to this high authority, I must 
 still contend that the practice here attempted to be 
 justified is of the most immoral tendency. It fa- 
 miliarizes the mind to a disregard of judicial oaths 
 to equivocations of conscience, which no state 
 of the law, and no consequences however revolting 
 or unjust, can sanction or excuse. It is the duty 
 of the Legislature to remove all temptations to so 
 dangerous a practice. 
 
 " Under the present law, the crime of shoplift- 
 ing has gone on increasing in regular progression. 
 It is not only the verdict of Jurors that is influ- 
 enced by its enactments ; the humanity of prose- 
 cutors and witnesses equally revolts at its indis- 
 
 * Coram. vol. iv. p. 23Q.
 
 PRIVATELY STEALING IN SHOPS, &C. 323 
 
 criminate rigour. Persons, whose property has been 
 stolen, have been known in numerous instances to 
 acquiesce contentedly in the loss, rather than to 
 prosecute, at the risque of sacrificing the life of, a 
 fellow-creature. Remove, however, the punishment 
 of death; proportion the penalty to the offence, 
 and this unwillingness will no longer exist. Pro- 
 secutions no less than convictions will multiply, the 
 sentence of the law will be carried into force, 
 and crimes will eventually dimmish. 
 
 " In considering this question as it deserves, it 
 is almost impossible to avoid alluding to some 
 other branches of the criminal law. I would 
 therefore solicit the attention of the House to the 
 offence of stealing to the amount of forty shillings 
 in a dwelling-house, an offence, which, like that 
 now under discussion, subjects the perpetrator to 
 the penalty of death. From the returns now on 
 the table it appears that within a period of eight 
 years, from the commencement of 1808 to the 
 end of 1815, no less than one thousand and ninety- 
 seven had been brought to trial. Of these, two 
 hundred and ninety-three only have been capitally 
 convicted, and not one has been executed. In 
 1816 one hundred and thirty-one more persons 
 were tried for the same offence, of whom forty- 
 nine were capitally convicted, and one (whose case 
 was accompanied by circumstances of great ag- 
 gravation) was executed. So that out of twelve
 
 324 PRIVATELY STEALING IN SHOPS, &C. 
 
 hundred and twenty-eight individuals tried, three 
 hundred and forty-two only have been capitally 
 convicted (the Juries either acquitting the eight 
 hundred and eighty-six, or finding them guilty of 
 stealing to a less amount), and only one person has 
 been executed. Is this a state of law which it is 
 desirable to continue? 
 
 " In this offence, as well as in that which is the 
 subject of the present Motion, it has become the 
 general practice never to enforce the extreme pe- 
 nalty of the law except in some particular and ex- 
 traordinary cases. In many offences, however, the 
 very reverse of this principle prevails. Any relax- 
 ation in the punishment denounced by law, far from 
 being customary or expected, is a rare exception to 
 the general rule. The offences, to which I more 
 particularly allude, are those of Fraudulent Bank- 
 ruptcy and Forgery. With respect to the former, 
 those at all acquainted with the subject, must 
 know what a number of fraudulent cases have 
 occurred, especially during the last forty years. 
 By the 5th of George II. any bankrupt who re- 
 fuses to appear to his commission, or who con- 
 ceals or embezzles property of the value of ,^20, 
 is guilty of felony without benefit of clergy. This 
 is a crime for which, it has been long understood 
 that no mercy is to be expected from the Crown. 
 So rigorously have the interests of trade been sup- 
 posed to require that this law should be enforced, 
 that there is only one instance of an offender
 
 PRIVATELY STEALING IN SHOPS, &C. 325 
 
 against it, being pardoned, and that under very 
 peculiar circumstances. But the consequence of 
 this rule is, that though the crime is veiy common, 
 prosecutions and convictions for it are extremely 
 rare. During a period of eighty-five years, there 
 have been only four instances of conviction for 
 fraudulent bankruptcy. Whilst the punishment is 
 so dreadful, men are unwilling to prosecute. Cre- 
 ditors are often defrauded to a large amount, but 
 they allow the offenders to escape without punish- 
 ment, because they perceive no alternative between 
 impunity and the dreadful certainty of shedding 
 their blood. Were the punishment less severe, I 
 am satisfied that the prosecutions would be more 
 frequent, and the crime itself more rare. 
 
 " The offence of Forgery has also greatly in- 
 creased. This may be perhaps in a great degree 
 attributable to the immense paper currency not 
 merely of the Bank of England, but of other bo- 
 dies, and to the general augmentation of the num- 
 ber of paper securities. Be the cause, however, 
 what it may, the severity of the law seems in no 
 way to promise any diminution of the crime. It 
 has multiplied and is multiplying, in spite of the 
 numerous statutes which denounce it in every 
 form, and which are almost invariably carried into 
 execution. To what purpose then is such extra- 
 ordinary rigour persevered in, if it fail to produce 
 the only effect which can justify its infliction? 
 The frequency of capital punishment in cases of 
 
 Y 3
 
 326 PRIVATELY STEALING IN SHOPS, &C. 
 
 forgery has had the result, I am fully persuaded, 
 of exciting a strong feeling of compassion on the 
 part of the public towards the sufferers, and of 
 deterring many from proceeding against similar 
 offenders. Indeed, some recent examples of this 
 punishment have made a deep impression on the 
 public mind. This dayse'nnight two women were 
 executed for forgery; and this very morning, two 
 boys, the one sixteen, and the other seventeen, 
 years of age, would have been executed for the 
 same crime, had it not been for the exertions of two 
 hon. members of this House (Mr. Bennetand Mr. 
 Alderman Wood) who have detected a conspiracy 
 for the purpose of their seduction, and who have 
 successfully pressed a recommendation for the sus- 
 pension of their punishments. Is it possible that 
 such spectacles as these can have any other effect 
 than to produce, not obedience to the law, but 
 compassion for those who transgress it? 
 
 " If the sanction of the law is insufficient to 
 prevent the crime, it is calculated to produce the 
 worst effects. There is not only the loss of lives, 
 but the deterioration of moral feeling, which such 
 exhibitions are calculated to occasion. It is the 
 duty of the Legislature to inculcate respect, not 
 disregard, for human life. This sentiment has 
 been much better expressed by Mr. Burke, in 
 speaking of the punishment of a great many per- 
 sons for political crimes. ' It is certain,' says he, 
 ' that a great havoc among criminals hardens, ra-
 
 PRIVATELY STEALING IN SHOPS, &C. 327 
 
 ther than subdues, the minds of people inclined to 
 the same crimes ; and therefore fails of answering 
 its purpose as an example. Men who see their 
 lives respected and thought of value by others, 
 come to respect that gift of God themselves. To 
 have compassion for one's self, or to care, more or 
 less, for one's own life, is a lesson to be learned 
 just as every other ; and I believe it will be found, 
 that conspiracies have been most common and 
 most desperate, where their punishment has been 
 most extensive and most severe. Besides, the 
 least excess in this way excites a tenderness in the 
 milder sort of people, which makes them consider 
 Government in a harsh and odious light. The 
 sense of justice in men is overloaded and fatigued 
 with a long series of expectations, or with such a 
 carnage at once, as rather resembles a massacre, 
 than a sober expectation of the laws. The laws 
 thus lose their terror in the minds of the wicked, 
 and their reverence in the minds of the virtuous*.' 
 " Before I sit down, I may be allowed to advert 
 to a public spectacle which has been recently exhi- 
 bited at Newgate, in the case of a wretched man 
 who, being accused of murder, destroyed himself. 
 It is stated in the newspapers of the day, that the 
 mangled and bloody corpse was exposed on an 
 elevated platform, with a small gallows erected 
 over it, to which was appended the instrument of 
 
 * Thoughts on the approaching Executions. 
 v4
 
 328 PRIVATELY STEALING IN SHOPS, &C. 
 
 - 
 
 destruction, and that in this manner, conducted 
 by the common executioner, and attended by an 
 immense crowd of men, women, and children, it 
 was borne in procession to the place of interment! 
 Such a horrid exhibition, I am persuaded, is 
 calculated to produce the worst effects on those 
 beholding it. And what authority is there for it? 
 All that it is justifiable to do with the body of a 
 man on whom a Coroner's Jury has pronounced a 
 verdict of self-murder, is to bury it without the 
 rites of the Church. Is it not then a grave mat- 
 ter of complaint, that a sheriff, or any other person, 
 should take upon himself to pronounce an indivi- 
 dual under such circumstances (however flagrant 
 the case may appear) guilty of another crime for 
 which he has not been tried, and to cause his ex- 
 hibition in so hideous a form, and in a way so dis- 
 graceful to the character of the country, and so 
 injurious to the morals of the people? The House 
 well remembers the strong and impressive manner 
 in which a late right hon. Gentleman of distin- 
 guished talents reprobated a similar scene which 
 was allowed to take place a few years ago. Such 
 disgraceful exhibitions deserve to be noticed, and 
 I trust they will not occur again. 
 
 " I will detain the House no longer than to 
 move for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal so much 
 of the 10th & llth of William III. as takes away 
 the benefit of clergy from persons convicted of
 
 INDEMNITY BILJ,. 329 
 
 stealing privately in Shops or Warehouses property 
 to the value of five shillings." 
 
 Mr. John Smith and Sir John Newport sup- 
 ported the Motion, and confirmed the statements 
 of Sir Samuel Romilly. The instances of frau- 
 dulent bankruptcies, they said, were innumerable, 
 though so rarely prosecuted. The crime of for- 
 gery had also lamentably increased. Numerous 
 cases were hushed up, from the indisposition of the 
 parties to prosecute. The Bankers of London 
 had formed an association for the prosecution of 
 forgeries, in order that no individual pity might 
 interpose between the offence and punishment ; but 
 even this expedient had been found unavailing. 
 Leave was given to bring in the Bill. 
 
 INDEMNITY BILL. 
 
 March llth, 1818. 
 
 THE Attorney General having moved the Order 
 of the Day for going into a Committee on the In- 
 demnity Bill, Sir Samuel Romilly rose, and spoke 
 to the following effect. 
 
 " Sir, objecting as I do to every principle upon
 
 330 INDEMNITY BILL. 
 
 which this Bill proceeds, I should certainly, but 
 for the thinness of the House, have opposed it in 
 some earlier stage. I rise now, however, to resist 
 its further progress. I rise not from the vanity of 
 supposing that I shall be able to throw any new 
 light upon the subject, but from a sense of its im- 
 portance, and of the obligations which I am under 
 as a member of the Legislature to protest against 
 the enactment of a measure not less unjust in its 
 immediate consequences to individuals, than dan- 
 gerous in its principles to the future liberty and 
 happiness of the whole people. 
 
 " The proposed measure is not, as it has been 
 called by Ministers, a mere Bill of Indemnity. 
 It is not a Bill to protect an individual from the 
 effects of some accidental excess of discretion 
 under novel and unlooked-for circumstances. It is 
 not an Act to suspend the operation of Penal Laws; 
 not an Act like those which are annually passed 
 under the title of Bills of Indemnity, and which, 
 while screening any men or class of men from the 
 consequences of public prosecution, cautiously 
 abstain from all interference with the private 
 rights of individuals. No, the object of the pre- 
 sent Bill is, in many cases, to annihilate such 
 rights, to rob the injured and oppressed of every 
 remedy, to put them out of the pale of English 
 Law. Every Court in the Country is to be pre- 
 cluded from listening to their complaints, and any 
 attempt on the part of the sufferers to obtain
 
 INDEMNITY BILL. 331 
 
 relief, is to be met not merely with a denial of 
 justice, but with the oppressive penalty of double 
 costs. To crown the whole, the proposed indem- 
 nity is to refer in its operation, not only to occur- 
 rences under the Suspension Act, but to every 
 abuse of authority which may have been commit- 
 ted by Ministers or their agents since the 26th of 
 January 1817. 
 
 " Such, Sir, are the objects of this Bill, and it 
 behoves us to reflect most seriously upon them 
 before we suffer it to pass into a Law. As the 
 guardians of public liberty, as the Representa- 
 tives of the People, it becomes us to approach the 
 consideration of such a subject, affecting as it 
 does the dearest interests of the community, with 
 the most sacred and solemn feelings. Nothing 
 but the clearest demonstration of its necessity, 
 nothing but the strongest and most indubitable 
 proof, that it is required for the preservation of 
 the State and for the safety of the People, can 
 possibly justify us in assenting to it. To render 
 justice to the oppressed, should be the first object 
 of all Governments. It is peculiarly that of the 
 British Constitution. The great charter of our 
 liberties, confirmed by more Parliaments than we 
 have had Kings, the Petition and Bill of Rights, 
 every Statute of which as Englishmen we are or 
 ought to be proud, all bear record that the Go- 
 vernment of England is a Government of Law and 
 Justice. Justice shall be denied or delayed to no
 
 332 INDEMNITY BILL. 
 
 man, ' Nulli negalimus out dlfferemm justttlam 
 vel rectum, is the sacred maxim of English Law. 
 It is indeed the foundation of the whole fabric of 
 our Government ; it is the very essence of those 
 Laws which are equally the inheritance of the 
 Sovereign and the subject, and which both are 
 alike interested to preserve. It was with this 
 view that the wisdom of our ancestors provided, 
 that every King or Queen of this realm should, at 
 the time of Coronation, solemnly promise and 
 swear to govern the people according to the Laws, 
 and to cause law and justice, in mercy, to be ad- 
 ministered throughout the land ! This oath, 
 while it imposes the most sacred obligations on the 
 King, not less solemnly recognises the funda- 
 mental rights of the People. Is the House pre- 
 pared to violate these principles ? Can it at once 
 accede to a measure which declares, that for a 
 certain class of His Majesty's subjects there shall 
 be no law and no justice? The duty which we 
 have at this moment to discharge is no less sacred 
 and solemn than a judicial inquiry; and shall we, 
 as men of honour and conscience, pronounce a 
 verdict, before we are fully acquainted with the 
 facts, before we have beard the evidence on both 
 sides? 
 
 " The House is aware of the great number of 
 petitions which have been presented to it, com- 
 plaining of oppression, cruelty, and injustice; but 
 we have not yet investigated them, and are con-
 
 INDEMNITY BILL. 333 
 
 sequently in total ignorance whether the allega- 
 tions, which they contain, are true or false. And 
 yet, placed as we are in this extraordinary and un- 
 paralleled situation, sitting, as we do, in judg- 
 ment upon every interest which can be dear or 
 valuable to the community, we are called on to 
 decide at once, that the complainants shall have 
 no redress, that the doors of every Court of Jus- 
 tice shall be barred against them! Such will be 
 the consequences of adopting this Bill, and I 
 would impress them seriously upon the attention 
 of the House, that it may not be deluded, that 
 it may remember the responsibility which it owes 
 to its Constituents, and proceed with that circum- 
 spection and anxiety, which the importance of the 
 case demands. 
 
 " This Bill embraces a variety of objects, but 
 they may be all considered under three heads. 
 The first is indemnity to Ministers for the acts of 
 authority which they have exercised during the 
 late alarming state of the Country, as the Reports 
 of the Committees have described it: the se- 
 cond is indemnity to Magistrates under similar 
 circumstances: the third is indemnity to In- 
 formers, against the dangers, which, it is supposed, 
 may attend the disclosure of their names and evi- 
 dence in a Court of Law. Now, as far as the Bill 
 relates to the first of these objects, it has been con- 
 sidered by many persons in a most erroneous 
 point of view. Several Gentlemen, and amongst
 
 334 INDEMNITY BILL. 
 
 them the Members for Bristol and Sandwich in 
 particular, have contended that the Bill of Indem- 
 nity is a necessary consequence of the Act of Sus- 
 pension, that the Legislature having intrusted 
 Ministers with extraordinary powers, is bound to 
 protect them in the exercise of those powers. A 
 more mistaken notion than this can hardly be en- 
 tertained. For the exercise of the powers given 
 by Parliament Ministers require no indemnity. 
 The Act, which conferred the trust, sanctions 
 every thing necessary to be done in pursuance of 
 it. Whether the present Bill passes or not, Mi- 
 nisters can never be called in question in any 
 Court of Law for having done that which Parlia- 
 ment has authorized them to do. Were Ministers 
 to take upon themselves to lay an embargo on all 
 the vessels in our ports, a Bill of Indemnity might 
 be necessary to protect them from the conse- 
 quences ; but will any Gentleman say it would be 
 necessary, if they bad previously obtained the 
 sanction of an Act of Parliament to the measure ? 
 The Suspension Act of the last Session operated 
 in the same manner. It empowered Ministers to 
 detain, without bringing to trial, individuals sus- 
 pected of treasonable practices ; it prevented the 
 individuals so arrested from resorting to the Ha- 
 beas Corpus or the Common Law of the land. 
 Why, then, should it be conceived, that a spe- 
 cial Bill of Indemnity is necessary for the pro- 
 tection of Ministers ? If they now require to be
 
 INDEMNITY BILL. 335 
 
 indemnified, it can only be in consequence of 
 acts which the Suspension did not authorize, it 
 must be not for detaining men in custody under 
 that law, but for imprisoning and treating them in 
 a manner contrary to all law. 
 
 " It has been maintained by my hon. and 
 learned Friend, the Attorney General, as well as 
 by the noble Lord near him, that in no case has 
 any warrant of detention been issued except in 
 consequence of information upon oath. The Re- 
 ports of the Secret Committees of both Houses 
 state the same thing. If such be the fact, what 
 need is there of a Bill of Indemnity ? But how is 
 the fact established ? On what authority, except 
 on that of the Ministers themselves, and of their 
 own Reports ? But supposing the assertion to be 
 true, supposing that no one has been arrested but 
 upon information taken on oath, what satisfac- 
 tion can the knowledge of this circumstance afford 
 to the Country, when it also considers the other 
 circumstances under which the information has 
 been given? We learn from the Attorney Ge- 
 neral, that he cannot, without a breach of faith, 
 disclose the sources of information on which Mi- 
 nisters have acted, because that information was 
 obtained under promises of secrecy. If such 
 promises were held out, the House has been 
 grossly misled and imposed on by the allega- 
 tions contained in the Reports. Is it on inform- 
 ation given under such circumstances that the 
 personal freedom and safety of Englishmen ought
 
 336 INDEMNITY BILL. 
 
 to depend ? Is it in oaths extorted under assur- 
 ances of perpetual secrecy, that they can hope to 
 find security against the most unjust and cruel 
 imprisonment? In the ordinary course of law, 
 the accuser knows that he will be confronted with 
 the accused, that his name will go forth to the 
 public, that his evidence will be sifted, and, if 
 found to be false, will expose him to the penalties 
 of perjury. These are checks which must ope- 
 rate on the most abandoned, even on those with 
 whom the sense of religion can have no influence. 
 But what control exists over witnesses under cir- 
 cumstances like the present ? What is to restrain 
 a herd of Spies and Informers, interested in giving 
 testimony, and giving that testimony under the 
 seal of secrecy? Constituted as the minds of 
 such men frequently are, awed by no scruples 
 of conscience, or feelings of humanity, what is to 
 deter them, if the terror of exposure and punish- 
 ment be removed, from preferring the most un- 
 founded charges, from gratifying any suggestions 
 that interest or malice can supply ? Yet this is 
 the evidence without which, it is the boast of Mi- 
 nisters, that they have deprived no man of his 
 liberty! This is the evidence which, though 
 wanting all the sanctions of a legal obligation, a 
 Committee of this House has thought it satis- 
 factory to notice as testimony upon oath ! 
 
 " It has been said that Government should 
 obtain credit, on their own assertions, that they 
 have not abused the powers which have been in-
 
 INDEMNITY* BILL. 337 
 
 trusted to them, or, more properly speaking 1 , the 
 extraordinary powers with which they have invested 
 themselves, for that is the real fact. This may 
 be so ; it is certainly possible that Ministers 
 may not have abused their authority; but the 
 House has ho right to presume that such is the 
 case. The only inquiry, that has taken place, 
 was one conducted in secrecy, by Ministers them- 
 selves; and this, though the table is covered with 
 complaints of their cruelty and oppression ! An hon. 
 Gentleman * whom I do not now see in the House, 
 and whom, as I do not recollect the name of the 
 place he represents, I cannot describe otherwise 
 than as the Gentleman who declared, that he sup- 
 ported this Bill for the sake of his own consist- 
 ency, has said, that the allegations in every one 
 of the Petitions have been disproved. Every one 
 disproved! What an assertion from any man at 
 all acquainted with the principles of judicial in- 
 quiry ! Surely the hon. Gentleman does not 
 mean us to construe denial into disproof, or to 
 persuade the House that there is any thing but de- 
 nial to warrant his assertion. That denial, too, 
 the mere denial of the accused, to how few in- 
 deed of the numerous Petitions on the table does 
 even that apply ? Of eleven Petitions, which 
 
 * Mr. Fieemantle. 
 VOL. II. z
 
 INDEMNITY BIU.. 
 
 formed the subject of one night's debate *, there 
 were only three in which any of the facts were de- 
 nied. All the statements contained iu all the 
 others remain undisputed. For my own part I do 
 not mean to say that every allegation in the vari- 
 ous Petitions must be taken to be true; I only 
 contend for the necessity of that inquiry, which, 
 whether true or false, they so imperiously demand. 
 If they are true, reason, humanity, every consider- 
 ation of policy and justice, forbid that the suf- 
 ferers should he precluded from redress ; if,- on 
 the contrary, they are false, the investigation 
 should take place far the sake of Ministers, for 
 the vindication of the calumniated character of 
 Government. It would be an opportunity to the 
 accused, of adducing evidence in refutation of the 
 charges preferred against them by the Petitioners. 
 Of this, indeed, neither the Ministers nor their 
 advocates, neither the Gentlemen who have ori- 
 ginated, nor those who so emphatically repeat, 
 the denials of such charges, can be unaware ; and, 
 yet they have both Desisted every proposition for 
 an inquiry in this House, and are even proceed- 
 ing to exercise their powers of legislation by 
 closing up the avenues to truth, in every other 
 tribunal! What is the inference from these facts? 
 
 * Debate on Lord Folk&tone's Motion on the l~th of Fe- 
 bruary 1818.
 
 INDEMNITY' BILL. $39 
 
 It is, indeed, obvious. But will not the House 
 pause ? Will it not reflect on the impression 
 which its conduct must make in the Country, if 
 it grants indemnity to the oppressor, when it re- 
 fuses all inquiry into the complaints of the op- 
 pressed; if it gives protection to the accused, 
 while it disregards the Petitions of their accusers? 
 If the House is to act in this manner, it may as 
 well say to the people at once, ' Do not present 
 any Petitions to us ; however gross the oppression 
 and injustice of which you complain, we will not 
 attend to von.* Indeed the conduct which some 
 
 p 
 
 Gentlemen here seem resolved to pursue is rather 
 an intimation to oppressed individuals that they 
 had better not petition this House at all. For 
 what is the result to those presuming to complain? 
 What, but to have their sufferings aggravated by 
 some stigma affixed to their character, to be 
 charged with falsehood, to have the charge ren- 
 dered current by repetition, and that, perhaps, 
 through the very channels which exclude their 
 cases from a fair and open issue ? 
 
 " Such is the course of those who require Par- 
 liament to legislate on the transactions of the last 
 fourteen months, without allowing any inquiry 
 either into their nature or extent. But there has 
 been, I hear it asserted, there has been an inquiry. 
 Yes I an inquiry before a Committee chosen by 
 Ministers themselves, an inquiry before a Com- 
 mittee, of which Ministers did not blush to nomi- 
 
 2 2
 
 340 INDEMNITY BILL. 
 
 rtate themselves Members! On the first reading 
 of this Bill a right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Canning) 
 said that Ministers had taken no part in the De- 
 bate, because it did not become them to be too 
 eager on a subject which affected themselves. 
 On this ground the right hon. Gentleman jus- 
 tified the silence of his Colleagues. How comes 
 it, then, that these Ministers are not more con- 
 sistent ? How comes it that persons so diffident 
 of their own judgment, and so desirous of submit- 
 ting to the opinion of others, have taken any part 
 in the Secret Committee? It seems, however, 
 that, though Ministers decline to defend them- 
 selves in public, they have no objection whatever 
 to become the most active Members in a private 
 Committee, selected by themselves ; they feel no 
 scrnples in supplying- all the evidence, in gar- 
 bling or distorting, in bringing forward or keep- 
 ing back, such parts of it as may happen to tell for 
 or against their own case. With all their affected 
 bashful ness and delicacy about standing forward 
 in this House, and endeavouring openly to explain 
 their conduct, they have not blushed to sit, in 
 secret, as the accusers, witnesses, and judges in 
 their own cause, and finally to draw up a Report 
 to acquit themselves ! Such has been the conduct 
 of Ministers, a conduct, in my opinion, the exact 
 reverse of every thing which conscious rectitude 
 and honest feeling might be supposed to dictate on 
 such an occasion !
 
 INDEMNITY BILL. 341 
 
 " A great deal lias been said of the mode in 
 which the Committee was appointed. A right 
 hon. Gentleman (Mr. Canning) has gravely as- 
 sured us, that neither the name of his noble 
 Friend (Lord Castlereagh) nor that of any of his 
 colleagues would have appeared on the list, if a 
 majority of the House had not decided that it 
 should be there. In fact, the Country is to be-* 
 lieve, that a nomination by ballot has the effect of 
 excluding all undue influence, and giving the fair 
 result of the opinions of the House. Such might be 
 the effect of a fair ballot, but not of a ballot, where 
 the Minister sends round to his adherents lists of 
 the persons whom he intends to compose the Com- 
 mittee. This is to substitute a cabal for a ballotj 
 the principle of the latter being, that one man shall 
 not know how another votes. That Ministers 
 should be partial to this mode of proceeding I am 
 not surprised. It enables them to accomplish in 
 private, what they might occasionally find it diffi- 
 cult or hazardous to attempt by public vote. In 
 resorting to a ballot they are well aware, that they 
 can never be in a minority. The House is com- 
 posed of different parties ; the Ministerial party, 
 which is the largest, or Ministers would soon 
 cease to retain their power ; the Opposition party, 
 which though smaller, yet when assisted by others, 
 now and then becomes a majority ; and, thirdly, 
 the Neutrals, or those who professing to be- of no 
 party, sometimes vote on one side, and some-
 
 342 INDEMNITY BILL. 
 
 times on the other, and who, to use a legal phrase, 
 may be said to be in transitu. Now, if a fair 
 ballot were to take place, if every Member were 
 left to put into the glass the names of those whom 
 he wished to appoint without any previous com- 
 munication or influence, it is possible that the 
 Neutral party or the Gentlemen on their passage 
 might occasionally throw in a preponderance 
 against the Ministers ; but whilst the lists are 
 made out by Ministers themselves, and are sent 
 to none but their firm adherents, it is obvious that 
 the other parties, acting without concert, cannot 
 produce a majority of votes. 
 
 " The right lion. Gentleman has said, that he 
 is old enough to remember the time, when there 
 were two lists in circulation on every ballot ; 
 that, as regularly as one list came from the Trea- 
 sury, another proceeded from the Opposition, and 
 that those two lists were handed through the 
 House, producing a wonderful correspondence be- 
 tween the parties. I cannot contradict the right 
 hon. Gentleman, though certainly since I have sat 
 in this House, no such practice has ever prevailed. 
 But whatever may have been the practice of other 
 times, which I shall not attempt to justify, it is 
 impossible that any tiling more flagrant could have 
 ever occurred, than that which took place on the 
 last ballot. For it is a fact one of the scru- 
 tineers (Mr. Calcraft) has openly asserted it in this 
 House that, out of one hundred and three lists
 
 INDEMNITY BILL. 345 
 
 put into the glass on that occasiort, ninety-seven 
 were in the same hand-writing ! To escape such 
 detection in future, I would recommend that the 
 lists should be printed, unless indeed Ministers 
 should be restrained from adopting that method 
 by their love of economy! I am astonished that 
 Gentleman can look at' the mode in which the Se- 
 cret Committee has been appointed, and place any 
 reliance on the impartiality of its proceedings. 
 And yet, this is the Committee to whose autho- 
 rity the House is desired to bow, upon whose 
 statement alone, a statement drawn up by Minis- 
 ters themselves, the House and the Country are 
 required to believe, ' that the Government has 
 acted in all the recent transactions with as much 
 moderation and lenity as was compatible with the 
 paramount object of general security ! ' 
 
 " It has been argued by my hon. and learned 
 Friend (the Attorney General) that a Bill of In- 
 demnity is the necessary consequence of the Sus- 
 pension of the Habeas Corpus, and to support 
 this assertion he has cited several precedents. 
 Now I will venture to say, and I have taken 
 some pains to inform myself on the subject, that 
 no precedent can be found at all applicable to the 
 circumstances of the present measure, except that 
 of 1801. That an Act of Indemnity has some- 
 times followed the Suspension of the Habeas 
 Corpus, I admit ; but it is by no means, there- 
 fore, to be concluded that the one is the cause of 
 
 z4
 
 344 INDEMNITY BILL. 
 
 the other. To argue that, because one thing fol- 
 lows another, the former is the natural con- 
 sequence of the latter, would be a sophism for 
 which, as my learned Friend knows, a name can 
 easily be found among logicians. The House will 
 do well to recollect the state of the Country, when 
 Acts of Indemnity were resorted to in former 
 times. Undoubtedly soon after the Revolution, as 
 well as after the rebellions of 1715 and 1745, the 
 suspensions of the Habeas Corpus were followed 
 by Bills of Indemnity. But the Indemnity was 
 in neither of these cases, granted as a consequence 
 pf the Suspension. It was the agitated and en^ 
 dangered state of the Country, calling on those 
 in authority to exert themselves on the spur of the 
 occasion, to resort, perhaps at all hazards and 
 without a moment's delay, to measures which the 
 safety of the State might demand, but which the 
 Legislature had neither anticipated nor provided 
 for ; it was the extraordinary crisis of public af- 
 fairs, and not the Suspension of the Habeas Cor- 
 pus, that rendered necessary a Bill of Indemnity 
 at those particular periods. Though the former 
 had not passed, the latter would not have been 
 less necessary on those occasions. 
 
 " In the year 1780, a Bill of Indemnity was 
 passed, thojugh the Habeas Corpus had not been 
 suspended. That was a period, not indeed of any 
 thing to be dignified with the name of rebellion, 
 but of most atrocious violence and outrage in the
 
 INDEMNITY BILL. 
 
 metropolis, which caused for the moment, the sus- 
 pension of all Government, and which required the 
 most prompt and efficacious measures for the re- 
 storation of public tranquillity. It was deemed 
 necessary, in fact, for the Magistrates to take 
 some steps not altogether warranted by the strict 
 letter of the law. A Bill of Indemnity was, there- 
 fore, passed to screen them from the consequences. 
 But had the Habeas Corpus been suspended 
 at that time, will my hon. and learned Friend 
 say, that a Bill of Indemnity would have been 
 necessary for their protection ? The Ministers, 
 however, of that day did not think proper to pro- 
 pose the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus in order 
 to suppress the tumult of the rabble! And yet in 
 the course of the last fourteen months, that Act 
 has been twice suspended, and that, too, when it 
 had been clearly proved that, whatever was the 
 existing 1 spirit, it was confined to a few miserable 
 wretches, reduced to the lowest poverty and dis- 
 tress, when it was admitted on all sides, that 
 none of the higher and scarcely any of the middle 
 ranks were implicated ! What then was the dan- 
 ger that existed ? Why has the Constitution of 
 the Country been suspended? Why have the 
 people been deprived of their liberties, when the 
 ordinary iaws were sufficient to meet all the dan- 
 gers that might arise? 
 
 " When Ministers and their advocates speak so 
 confidently of practice and precedents, and of
 
 346 INDEMNITY BILL. 
 
 the necessary connexion between Acts of Suspen- 
 sion and Bills of Indemnity, "they seem to have 
 forgotten both Atterbury's conspiracy and the 
 American War. In neither of those cases was the 
 suspension of the Habeas Corpus followed by an 
 Act of Indemnity. The only precedent at all in 
 point the only precedent which can be said, in 
 any decree, to sanction the measure now proposed 
 for the adoption of the House, is the precedent of 
 1801 ; and that, as I shall endeavour presently to 
 show, is one that would be much ' more honoured 
 in (he breach, than in the observance.' 
 
 *' I now come to the second object of the 
 Bill the protection of the Magistrates from the 
 ronseqnences of any illegal acts committed by 
 them during the last fourteen months. The only 
 case to which the Attorney General has referred in 
 justification of this part of the Bill, is that which 
 occurred at Manchester^ a case, which (however 
 anxious some Gentlemen may be to encourage 
 Magistrates to what is called ' a vigour beyond the 
 law" 1 ) I little thought to have heard of as a 
 ground of the present proceeding. Does the House 
 recollect the circumstances of that case? At a 
 public meeting which hud been previously adver- 
 tised, the Magistrates of Manchester thought 
 proper to take up a number of persons, whom they 
 afterwards committed to prison, in order, as it was 
 stated, to have them tried at the following Ses- 
 sions, which trial the prisoners themselves de-
 
 INDEMNITY BILL. 347 
 
 sired and were led to expect. But their case was 
 removed by ccrtiorari to the Court of King's 
 Bench ; and at the Summer Assizes, instead of 
 having to defend themselves against any of the 
 imputed charges, they were at once acquitted, - 
 the learned Gentleman who represented the Attor- 
 ney General on that occasion, stating that in con- 
 sequence of the restored tranquillity of the neigh- 
 bourhood and the reluctance of Government to 
 punish, no evidence would be offered on the part of 
 the prosecution. Thus were the prisoners dis- 
 charged without any proof that they ought ever to 
 have been imprisoned, discharged too under an 
 insinuation, that their release was owing, not to 
 their own innocence, but to the lenity of Govern- 
 ment ! Thus did Ministers seek to obtain credit 
 for themselves at the expense of these men, who, 
 after long mental and bodily suffering after im- 
 prisonment, and the loss perhaps of character, 
 friends, and means of livelihood, were turned adrift 
 on the world without inquiry or redress! If they 
 are innocent, why have they been so oppressively 
 treated? If they are guilty, what have the Ma- 
 gistrates of Manchester to fear from any actions 
 which they may choose to bring against them? 
 Is it then fair. sitting as we are in the dark, 
 without knowing any one circumstance connected 
 with the detention of these men, is it fair to de- 
 mand of Parliament a sweeping protection for the
 
 348 INDEMNITY BILL. 
 
 Magistrates, who, if the arrests made by them are 
 of the nature which their friends assert, can have 
 HO possible motive for requiring it? If their eon- 
 duct be such as it is described, there already exists 
 a protection for them. The Act of the 24th of 
 George II. renders every other indemnity unneces- 
 sary. That Act declares that no action shall be 
 brought. against any Magistrate for any thing done 
 in the execution of his office unless commenced 
 within six months after the act committed. Is it 
 pretended, that any action has been commenced 
 within that time? If so, and the case be of a na- 
 ture to warrant the interposition of Parliament, 
 let the facts be clearly shown, and no one will he- 
 sitate to support any reasonable measure, not in- 
 consistent with its particular circumstances, 
 
 "This Bill extends back to the 26th of January 
 1817. Is there a single syllable in any of the Re- 
 ports of the Committees, either of the last or the 
 present Session, to justify this retrospective ope- 
 ration ? I put it to the House, or at least to that 
 part of it which professes to be independent and 
 not under the influence of Government. I put it 
 to those Gentlemen who stand, as it were, be- 
 tween Ministers and Opposition, and who take 
 credit to themselves for the honesty of their Par- 
 liamentary conduct, unbiassed by any party feel- 
 ing, I put it to them, how they can support this 
 measure, how, on the mere unsupported sugges-
 
 INDEMNITY BILL. 349 
 
 tion of Ministers, they can at once consent to 
 extend this total denial of justice even to a pe- 
 riod beyond that pointed out in the Reports on 
 which the proceeding- is founded? If they are 
 thus ready to bow to the desires of Ministers on 
 this occasion^ if they can extend the abolition of 
 law to the period now proposed, I am persuaded 
 that they would have done the same to any other 
 period that might have suited the views of Go- 
 vernment. But what is the object of this myste- 
 rious, unexplained, proceeding? Is it or is it not 
 intended to meet some flagrant case, to screen 
 some particular criminal from the justice that 
 might otherwise await, him? Will any one, -cam 
 any one possibly believe that there does not liark 
 behind the measure some sinister object that can- 
 not bear the -light? iiou?. ltij bioi 
 
 " How grossly the law may have been violated 
 by the Magistracy, many of the petitions now lying 
 on the table, cannot fail to show. Two petitions, 
 in particular, containing charges of a most serious 
 nature, were presented th/e other evening, and have 
 been suffered to lie upon the table without refuta- 
 tion or even discussion*. In. these it is alleged, 
 that the houses of the petitioners were forcibly 
 entered and searched, their books and papers 
 _- . ' in 
 
 * See the petitions of Jonathan Bnckley Mellor and Samuel 
 PHHng, booksellers of Warrington; Hansard, vol. xxxvii. p. 7*12; 
 and Evans, vol. ii. p. 694. 
 
 2
 
 850 INDRMNiTY BILL. 
 
 seized, they themselves dragged away from their 
 families, loaded with irons like common felons, 
 brought before the Sessions, and there condemned 
 without trial, to hard labour in the House of Cor- 
 rection; and ail this in consequence of the Cir- 
 cular Letter of Lord Sidrnouth ! AH this in con- 
 sequence of a Minister having suggested to Magis- 
 trates the propriety of seizing individuals for libel ! 
 If the House, which thought fit to sanction that 
 most unconstitutional interposition with the duties 
 of the Magistracy, had been told of the conse- 
 quence, that it would be the loading of persons 
 with irons, the sending of them to hard labour 
 before trial, the removal of them by certiorari, 
 when their trial would otherwise have come on, in 
 order to continue their sufferings, if the House 
 had been told that such would be the conse- 
 quences of that celebrated letter, would they not 
 have replied, that it was impossible? And yet 
 they are nothing more than the almost inevitable 
 result of the step then taken by the Secretary of 
 State! I do not mean to speak disrespectfully of 
 the Magistracy of the country; they are a neces- 
 sary and most useful body of men, and entitled to 
 the gratitude of the public for their important and 
 gratuitous services. But are there, among so 
 many individuals, no ignorant Magistrates? Are 
 there none, who may be disposed to court the fa- 
 vour of power, and who may possibly imagine 
 that an officious zeal and violence in the cases of
 
 INDEMNITY BILL. 
 
 persons denounced by Government, are tfe.e 
 surest means of attaining 1 their object? To -suck 
 men, the Circular Letter of the Secretary of State 
 offered a temptation to abuse of power, too 
 great to be resisted. This indeed appears t& 
 have been the case (if we believe the uncontra- 
 dicted statements of the petitioners) in the ia- 
 stances to which I have referred. -The seizure tf 
 papers and the seizure of persons sceui to have 
 beea with the Magistrates, mere correlative terms.. 
 The persons were seised under a pretext of having- ' 
 seditious papers; and the papers were seized under 
 the pretext of belonging to seditious persona. 
 Each was reciprocally suspected on account of 
 other! The punishment, to which the 
 were thus exposed, has been such as they would 
 not have suffered, if convicted. A punishment se> 
 atrocious could not have been inflicted. It is to 
 monstrous even to have i>een attempted. 
 
 " Every Gentleman, who hears me, is aware of 
 the important decision of Lord Catnden in Jfoe 
 Court of Common Pleas on the illegality of en- 
 tering into private houses, and seizing papers, 
 under the pretence of looking for seditious libels*. 
 Every Gentleman must be aware of tlie sensations 
 created not only in this country, but also abroad,, 
 by the act which gave rise to that decision. Ow 
 , . . ,,j{, 
 
 * See Hovel's State Trials, vol. xi*. p. 9821030; and 
 2 Wiis. p. 275.
 
 352 INDEMNITY BILL. 
 
 that occasion, when the act was so justly pro- 
 nounced to be illegal., what was the fact? The 
 seizure was made at mid-day under an order of a 
 Secretary of State. Yet now it seems to be a 
 matter of no moment, for Magistrates at any hour 
 to invade the private dwelling of an Englishman 
 on pretence of searching for papers, and even to 
 drag him from that dwelling to prison, and to load 
 him with irons like a murderer! Thus men sus- 
 pected only of libel, are punished upon the private 
 order of a Magistrate with greater severity than 
 they would have been exposed to, even if they had 
 been convicted of the alleged offence by a jury of 
 their countrymen. 
 
 " There is another case of the same kind, but 
 of still greater cruelty. It is so peculiarly affect- 
 ing, that I am astonished, no notice has been 
 taken of it. It is true that I have for it only the 
 authority of the newspapers, but it has been re- 
 peatedly detailed by them, and without receiving 
 contradiction. It is the case of a person of the 
 name of Swindells*, whose house was entered at 
 midnight by a Mr. Samuel Wood and others, as he 
 lay in bed with his wife, who was far advanced in 
 her pregnancy. Under pretence of searching for 
 . 
 
 ' * C" 1 T> M, r . , . f 
 
 * bit bamuel Romilly afterwards presented a petition from 
 Swindells, offering to prove the case detailed, and calling on Par- 
 liament for redress. See Evans,, vol. ii. p. 1015 ; and Hansard, 
 vol. xxxvii. p. 1069,
 
 INDEMNITY BILL* 333 
 
 persons, who, they said, had lodged in his house, 
 they ransacked every corner, broke open trunks, 
 and stripped him of papers and other articles of 
 his little property. But the scene did not end 
 here ; for, in consequence of the fright, Jiis wife 
 was prematurely delivered, and died; the infant, 
 deprived of the care and succour of its mother, 
 also died. The wretched man was then arrested 
 and dragged to Chester Castle, leaving another 
 child only one year and eight months old, to be 
 conveyed to the parish workhouse, and from thence, 
 in a short time, to the parish hurying-ground. 
 After remaining for upwards of five weeks in gaol, 
 where he subsisted on bread and water, having 
 no means of procuring any thing else, he was 
 discharged without trial, impoverished, ruined, 
 a widower, and childless! And all these cruelties 
 have been inflicted on a person guilty of no 
 crime! Are these wrongs to remain un redressed? 
 Gracious Heaven! -But do the Gentlemen oppo- 
 site imagine, that because they can suspend the 
 laws of this country, they can suspend the laws of 
 nature r Can they contemplate the consequences 
 of such atrocious proceedings, and bow before 
 their. God, or look their fellow men in the face? 
 
 " I am glad to see a learned Gentleman (the 
 Solicitor General) taking notes; but he cannot 
 invalidate the judgment of Lord Camden, he 
 cannot touch either the doctrines or the decision 
 
 VOL. II. A A
 
 354 INDEMNITY BILL, 
 
 of that venerable and upright Judge, he cannot 
 deny or justify the proceedings that have taken 
 place against persons suspected of libel. They 
 are proceedings more suited to the government of 
 Algiers than to any government that professes to 
 be directed by laws; they may be vindicated 
 under such a government, they cannot be men- 
 tioned in this House without execration and hor- 
 ror. And yet, with such statements before us, 
 uncontradicted, unexplained, we are now called 
 upon to exclude the sufferers from all redress, to 
 close the avenues of our courts of justice against 
 them, and to grant indemnity to all who have 
 violated the laws, under pretence, as Ministers 
 call it, of preserving the public peace. The House 
 may grant indemnity; it may throw a shield over 
 the authors of such cruelties, and screen them 
 from legal prosecutions ; but having done this, it 
 cannot shelter them from the execrations of man- 
 kind ; it cannot protect them from the reproaches 
 and tortures of their own consciences! 
 
 " My hon. Friend, the Member for Durham 
 (Mr. Lambton), has said that this measure is the 
 winding-up of that system of injustice, which has 
 been always pursued and encouraged by Ministers. 
 Would to heaven that it were so! I cannot con- 
 sider it as the winding-up, but as the commence- 
 ment, of a system which carries with it every spe- 
 cies of petty and unbridled tyranny through the 
 whole kingdom. To me it appears as a prelude to
 
 INDEMNITY BILL. 353 
 
 fresh exertions of power, and further denials of 
 justice. The Reports of the Committees of both 
 Houses declare, that it will be necessary for Ma- 
 gistrates to persevere in the same exertions which 
 they have hitherto made. * It appears ' (says the 
 Committee of the Lords), e that the continued vi- 
 gilance of Government and of the Magistrates 
 will still be necessary.' That is, it will still be 
 necessary to continue the same illegal proceedings 
 for which indemnity is now required. The lan- 
 guage of the Report of our own Committee is still 
 stronger. * Your Committee' (they say) l would 
 deceive the House, if they were not to state it as 
 their opinion, that it will still require all the vigi- 
 lance of Government and of the Magistracy to 
 maintain the tranquillity which has been restored! 
 This appears to me to imply nothing less than 
 this ' Do you, the Magistrates, go on as you have 
 already done, for that course is necessary to our 
 purpose.' The House may, therefore, expect that 
 at this time next year, Ministers will again come 
 forward with another Bill to indemnify Magistrates 
 against the consequences of their illegal conduct. 
 It has been necessary to violate the law ; it will be 
 necessary to violate it again ; and the indemnity 
 which is bestowed upon the violators in the one 
 case, cannot of course be withheld from them in 
 the other. 
 
 " To what scenes of horror this contempt of 
 law, this, familiarizing- men to tyranny on the one 
 
 A A 2
 
 356 INDEMNITY BILL. 
 
 hand, and to a refusal of justice on the other, may 
 ultimately lead, the events which occurred some 
 years ago in a sister Island, too clearly show. I 
 mean nothing personal; I should be sorry to em- 
 bitter the discussion of this question with any 
 thing personal. But a great and useful lesson has 
 been taught by the transactions in Ireland. At 
 the period to which I allude, the Magistrates 
 men distinguished for their loyalty, as it was call- 
 edwere stimulated to acts of atrocity, at the 
 mere recollection of which humanity shudders; 
 and those Magistrates were afterwards indemnified 
 nay rewarded with titles and honours! A noble 
 Lord has said, that it is desirable that those trans- 
 actions should be buried in oblivion. It would 
 have been happy indeed, if they had never existed; 
 but having existed, they ought to be recollected 
 and repeated for the instruction of all succeeding 
 ages. Buried in oblivion they never can be; they 
 form too important an epoch in the history of 
 these realms to be forgotten. Impartial posterity 
 will remember them, to do justice to all, to those 
 who were, the actors, no less than to those who 
 were the sufferers, in those dreadful scenes. I 
 will not disgust the House with a detail of the 
 tortures which were then inflicted. No one that 
 has heard, can forget them. Yet with such levity 
 were these outrages treated in the Irish Parliament, 
 that an hon. Member, in adverting to 'the indigna- 
 tion which they had so justly excited elsewhere,
 
 INDEMNITY BILL. 357 
 
 is reported to have said, ' All this outcry is about 
 the sore back of a Catholic*!' To such a want of 
 feeling to such excesses of cruelty are men insen- 
 sibly led when they have once departed from the 
 paths of law and justice, and familiarized them- 
 selves with acts of violence and arbitrary power. 
 What is to protect England from the calamities 
 which have desolated Ireland? The same system 
 which has caused wretchedness and degradation 
 there, will, if once tolerated, produce similar 
 effects here. Man is man under whatever govern- 
 ment he is placed, and it is the tendency of human 
 nature to exceed the authority intrusted to it. 
 Let the fate of Ireland then be a lesson to Eng- 
 land, let the House watch with jealousy and 
 alarm every attempt on the part of Government to 
 encourage Magistrates in the exercise of a discre- 
 tion beyond the law. 
 
 " It remains for me to speak of the third ob- 
 ject of this Bill namely, the indemnity to be 
 given to Informers, or rather the protection to be 
 afforded them from the supposed danger that 
 might attend the disclosure of their names and 
 testimony. In England this is a policy quite new 
 and unheard of. The Act of 1801, which origin- 
 ated with the Members of the present Administra- 
 
 * See the case of Wright v. Judkin Fitzgerald, and the sub- 
 cquent proceedings thereon in the Irish House of Common*. 
 Howil's State Trials, vol. xxvii. p. 759, &c. 
 A A 3
 
 358 INDEMNITY BILL. 
 
 tion, is the only precedent that can be cited in 
 support of the present measure, and that, from its 
 gross and shameful injustice, ought to be avoided 
 rather than followed. That Act granted an in- 
 demnity for transactions which had taken place 
 eight years before it passed. It inflicted double 
 costs on those who might have brought actions at 
 a time when no penalty attached to their seeking 
 redress. It punished them for not having antici- 
 pated, under the pressure of immediate grievances, 
 the measure of retrospective injustice which Par- 
 liament had yet in store for them. If they had 
 actually recovered judgment, they were deprived 
 of its benefit, and punished for having obtained it. 
 No judgment no redress, was allowed; but the 
 victims of injustice were, by Act of Parliament, 
 obliged to remain under all the wrongs which they 
 had sustained. This is the Act, which Ministers 
 and their advocates have pleaded as a precedent 
 for the present Bill ; and it may be pleaded as a 
 precedent for indemnifying Informers; for, like the 
 one now before us, it recites, that ' it is necessary 
 for the safety and protection of the persons by 
 whose information and means traitorous designs 
 have been discovered, and for the future prevention 
 of similar practices, that such information and 
 means shall remain secret and undisclosed.' 
 
 " But will any one argue that the circum- 
 stances, under which that Act was passed, bear 
 any analogy to those under which the present
 
 INDEMNITY BILL. 359 
 
 Bill is demanded? England was then engaged in 
 a war with France, between whose government 
 and certain persons in this country, an active cor- 
 respondence was alleged to have been carried on. 
 The information of that correspondence was said 
 to have been received from persons within the 
 power of the enemy, and who, if their names 
 were disclosed, would be exposed to the effects of 
 his vengeance. Such was the plea on which a 
 Bill of Indemnity was then granted. Is there any 
 analogy between the danger apprehended from a 
 disclosure at that time, and the danger which is 
 represented now? The objection to disclosure 
 now is, that persons, who have given information, 
 may be exposed to popular outrage or private re- 
 venge. Will the hon. and learned Gentlemen 
 opposite say, that in the late transactions, any 
 witness has been debarred from giving his evi- 
 dence through such apprehensions? Did any of 
 the witnesses who gave evidence on the trials in 
 London, at Derby, or at York, express any unwill- 
 ingness to come forward? Did any of them 
 make complaints to the Court of the want of pro- 
 tection, or the fear of danger? Has any one 
 since received either injury or threat for the testi- 
 mony which he then gave? Is there a single ex- 
 pression in the Reports of the Secret Committees 
 to show that any alarm on that subject has ever 
 been felt? In Ireland, I admit that witnesses 
 have been sometimes deterred from coming for- 
 
 A A 4
 
 360 INDEMNITY BILL. 
 
 ward by apprehensions of personal violence ; but 
 in England such cases are wholly unknown. No 
 danger is to be apprehended by any witness in this 
 country. And yet it is solely on the plea of such 
 danger that this part of the Bill is founded! The 
 House is now called on to embody in an Act of 
 Parliament, and to communicate to the world, a 
 belief that the lives of men who have given in- 
 formation to the Government, will not be safe in 
 this country unless the Legislature throw a shield 
 over them. When every thing manifests a contrary 
 inference, I have a right to contend, that to 
 ground a Bill of Indemnity on such an hypothesis, 
 is to ground it on a notorious falsehood ; for, ac- 
 cording to the old rule, ' De non apparentibits e,t 
 de non cxistentlbus eadem est ratio / ' The plea of 
 danger is, I repeat, an unfounded pretext a 
 false pretence. There is not a man, who hears 
 me, but must feel it to be such, and that the real 
 object of Ministers is to conceal from public re- 
 probation the unworthy means to which they have 
 resorted in pursuance of their schemes. 
 
 " But it is not alone to transactions which 
 have occurred, that this indemnity is to be ex- 
 tended. The same vigilance the same relaxation 
 of Law the same violation of the rights of the 
 subject, are recommended to be persevered in ; 
 and no doubt, for these future services, a si- 
 milar indemnity will be required. In plain Eng- 
 lish, THIS IS THE COMMENCEMENT OF A NEW SYS-
 
 INDEMNITY BILL. 361 
 
 TEM. And a new system it truly is, when the 
 Government of England sends forth its agents 
 amongst the miserable and irritated to ripen dis- 
 content into disaffection. After all that has been 
 said on the subject of Spies, it is not my intention 
 to dwell at any length on the admitted employ- 
 ment of those persons. I recollect the manner in 
 which my objections to the immorality of this 
 system were received. It is a system, however, 
 which though defended, or even applauded in this 
 House, I will never cease to reprobate. No cir- 
 cumstances, no perils can exist to warrant the 
 employment of Spies in the way in which Oliver 
 has been employed ; no state of affairs can sanc- 
 tion an expedient which would disgrace the 
 worst instruments of the worst Government. The 
 facetious remarks of a right hon. Gentleman op- 
 posite (Mr. Canning) are calculated rather to ridi- 
 cule morality, than to justify the use of Spies. 
 Confounding together two things most different iu 
 their nature, or rather representing them, for his 
 purposes, as the same, he has enlivened the 
 House with such humorous jests on polygamy and 
 the breach of moral duties, as to make his hearers, 
 in their merriment, forget the great principles in- 
 volved in the question before them. No one has 
 ever said, as the right hon. Gentleman must be 
 well aware, that Government was not to avail 
 itself of information, though derived from the 
 most profligate characters. But receiving inform-
 
 362 INDEMNITY BILL. 
 
 ation from them, and employing them as Spies, is 
 not quite the same thing-. 
 
 " Another of His Majesty's Ministers (Mr. B. 
 Bathurst), a person of a less sportive vein, who 
 thinks it unbecoming to treat such subjects with 
 levity, has come forward with the high names of 
 Lord Holt and Lord Eyre to justify the use of 
 Spies. Lord Holt, however, whose character, I 
 am sure, requires no vindication at this time of 
 day, is no authority whatever for employing 
 such persons. That learned and upright Judge 
 has merely approved of receiving the testimony of 
 Informers; he has not said a word to counte- 
 nance the employment of Spies. As to Chief Jus- 
 tice Eyre, had he sanctioned the practice, it would 
 have been to me a subject of no less regret than 
 surprise. He was a virtuous and independent 
 Judge and an excellent man. He had the merit 
 of rising from an inferior situation to the high 
 office of Chief Justice, not by avowing principles 
 pleasing to men in power, or by the subserviency 
 of his conduct, but by the thorough knowledge 
 which he possessed of the laws of England, and 
 by the manly integrity of his character. The opi- 
 nion of such a man must have considerable 
 weight. But what has he said with reference to 
 this subject? On Hardy's trial, Lord Eyre de- 
 clared, that it was lawful to send persons to sedi- 
 tious Meetings, to take notes of what passed, and 
 that they might afterwards give evidence of what
 
 INDEMNITY BILL. 363 
 
 they had seen and heard. This is the extent of 
 what he said. He did not say that it was lawful 
 to send persons, under false characters, to insti- 
 gate and impel the discontented to the commission 
 of crimes ; he did not assert that it was justifiable 
 for men to seduce, to plot and to conspire with, 
 that they might afterwards enrich themselves with 
 the reward of betraying, their fellow-subjects. No! 
 His Majesty's Ministers cannot sanction such prac- 
 tices by the authority of Chief Justice Eyre. They 
 cannot justify from any thing which that learned 
 Judge has said, ' the fitting out,'' as it has been well 
 expressed, of persons like Oliver. To him and to 
 Castles, the expression is most applicable. On the 
 trials in Westminster Hall, Castles, that infamous 
 and detestable character, that criminal wretch, 
 who had been guilty of polygamy, who had been 
 guilty of forgery, who had hanged one accom- 
 plice and transported another, who had been the 
 bully of a brothel, who had been before employ- 
 ed as a Spy, who, as the persons, against whom 
 he appeared, were proceeding to Spa Fields, had 
 put ammunition into the waggon, that man, 
 I say, that witness of the Government, was ' fitted 
 out' by the Police, that he might come into Court 
 like a gentleman, and give evidence that the pri- 
 soners at the Bar had committed high treason. 
 His wife also was ' fitted out,' and sent to York- 
 shire, that she might not appear on the trial. 
 This is literally * a fitting out.'
 
 364 INDEMNITY BILL. 
 
 " Bnt what is the case of Oliver? Will the 
 authority of Chief Justice Eyre sanction the man- 
 ner in which he has been employed ? Is it not no- 
 torious, that he went into the country, with the 
 knowledge of Government, in the character of a 
 delegate from a Society in London, and that, al- 
 though he attended at Meetings where others were 
 arrested, he was considered as a person not to be 
 apprehended * ? I do not mean to say, that Go- 
 vernment had instructed Oliver to excite insurrec- 
 tion ;. but they mst have been aware that the 
 very act of sending him in the character of a de- 
 legate, would have that effect. The Reports of 
 the Secret Committees, confirmed in this respect by 
 the trials at Derby, all tend to show, that the 
 hopes of the disaffected centred in London, 
 that not a man would have stirred if it had not 
 been believed that great numbers were ready to 
 rise in the metropolis. Who then can doubt the 
 effect which must have followed the appearance of 
 Oliver at such a juncture, as the ambassador; as 
 the accredited agent and envoy from the metro- 
 polis, as a living testimony of the strength and 
 boldness of the men on whose co-operation they 
 had been taught to depend ? Who can for a mo- 
 ment doubt, that the appearance of this London 
 delegate, addressing himself to the passions of the 
 
 f * See, among other Petitions, that of Benjamin Scoies> in 
 S&ans, vol. ii. p. 4'ilij ami in Hansard, vof.Xfa.vii, p. 453.
 
 INDEMNITY BILL. 365 
 
 distressed and discontented, calling on them lo 
 vindicate their rights, and to unite with the thou- 
 sands whom he represented as devoted to the same 
 cause in other parts, must have encouraged those 
 hopes which terminated in insurrection? 
 
 " When my hon. Friend, the Member for 
 Shrewsbury (Mr. Bennet), exposed the conduct of 
 Oliver, and stated that his information was drawn, 
 not from persons implicated in the charges pre- 
 ferred by Oliver, but, from those whom he had in 
 rain attempted to delude; a right hon. Gentleman 
 (Mr. B. Bathurst) laid considerable stress on the 
 suspicion that must attach to those who had lis- 
 tened to the suggestions of this man, and had not 
 denounced him to the Magistracy. That people, 
 who were unemployed and in want of bread, 
 should be impatient of their sufferings, and ready 
 to listen to those who pretended to have discover- 
 ed the means of relieving them, is not very surpris- 
 ing ; but does this lessen the guilt of those who, 
 instead of endeavouring to calm and instruct 
 these unfortunate beings, sent amongst them pre- 
 tended missionaries still farther to irritate and in- 
 flame their discontents, to promise them, in place 
 of their present misery, every abundance of future 
 comfort and enjoyment, to instigate them, in 
 fact, to purposes which, without such intervention, 
 they would never have thought of? The right 
 hon. Gentleman says that Oliver could have no in- 
 terest in increasing the discontents of the people.
 
 INDEMNITY BILL. 
 
 What ! can it be supposed that a man acting a<* a 
 hired Spy, was not aware, that the magnitude of 
 his services would be estimated by the nature 
 and the extent of the evil to which they were 
 applied, that the reward to which he aspired, 
 would be commensurate with the dangers from 
 which he might seem to have rescued the State ? 
 Had such a man no interest in exciting treason 
 where he found none, in encouraging the crimes 
 he was sent to detect ? 
 
 " But the right hon. Gentleman has said, that 
 Oliver did not create the disaffection, that he 
 found it ready organized on his arrival, that the 
 persons with whom he mixed, must have been 
 previously disaffected, or he could not have made 
 any impression upon them. When the right hon. 
 Gentleman asserts this, is he aware of the ground 
 on which he stands? AVhen he defends the conduct 
 of Ministers on the plea, that the victims of Oliver's 
 perfidy were predeterminately disaffected, is he 
 aware that he takes the same ground which was 
 taken by those infamous miscreants, who for the 
 sake of ' blood-money' seduced miserable men into 
 the perpetration of crimes? I do not now allude to 
 the abominable villainy of Brock and Pelham and 
 Power, who endeavoured to sacrifice men who were 
 perfectly innocent. That is a case so horrible in 
 its nature, that the history of the Country can 
 scarcely produce its parallel. It is to the justifi- 
 cation set up by Vaughan and his accomplices
 
 INDEMNITY BILL. 367 
 
 that I am referring, in illustration of my argu- 
 ment. What was the justification of Vaughan? 
 Forsooth, that the men excited by him to the com- 
 mission of burglary were not persons whom he 
 had seduced from the paths of religion and virtue, 
 but, were reputed thieves, that his only offence 
 was in laying the trap in which those intentional 
 burglars were caught. Their characters, he said, 
 were so bad, that they required only an opportu- 
 nity to act, in order to be guilty of theft and bur- 
 glary. The defence set up for instigating men to 
 rebellion is, that they were not unwilling to com- 
 mit state offences. Between these two cases I 
 cannot perceive the slightest distinction. When 
 coming from the lips of Vaughan, this defence 
 brought down the execration of the whole Coun- 
 try ; and yet Ministers think that the same plea 
 urged for themselves, is entitled to the favour and 
 approbation of Parliament ! 
 
 " Impelled, Sir, by a sense of the sacred and 
 solemn duty which, as a representative of the 
 People, I feel myself called upon to discharge, I 
 have delivered my opinions, at some length, on the 
 several objects of this Bill ; and I hope that the 
 great importance of the subject will be received as 
 an apology for having detained you so long in that 
 chair. I now beg leave to conjure the House to 
 consider the awful responsibility which it is 
 about to incur. If ever there was a moment when 
 party feelings and private interests ought to yield
 
 368 INDEMNITY BJLL. 
 
 to the general good, it is the present. The House 
 is now sitting to decide one of the most import- 
 ant questions that ever came before it ; it is sit- 
 ting in judgment on the Constitution of England. 
 Let me implore the House to pause before it con- 
 sents to sanction a measure, which strikes at the 
 root of all law, morality, and justice, which en- 
 courages the exercise of arbitrary power, and 
 tends to destroy every principle of virtue in the 
 hearts of the People. It is impossible not to fore- 
 see the evils that must result from adopting this 
 Bill. It forms a part of an odious system which 
 will be acted upon in future times, when the 
 prayers of the People, and the voice of patriotism, 
 will be raised in vain. 
 
 " In the course of the last year, the Habeas 
 Corpus has been suspended twice. There was no 
 rebellion at home, the Country was not threat- 
 ened with invasion from abroad, and yet, for the 
 space of twelve months the People have been de- 
 prived of this great bulwark of their liberties. A 
 Bill of Indemnity is now proposed, not for acts 
 done under the suspension, but for acts not war- 
 ranted by it. It is claimed, however, as the ne- 
 cessary consequence of the suspension. If this 
 Bill should be passed, suspensions and indemni- 
 ties will be more frequently called for. In times 
 of profound peace, on any slight appearance of 
 discontent, the Habeas Corpus will be suspended ; 
 the Magistrates will be stimulated to exercise
 
 INDEMNITY BILL. 369 
 
 powers beyond the law ; Spies will be employed to 
 call unlawful Meetings, and to excite the distress- 
 ed and deluded to acts of riot and insurrection ; 
 and when all this has been done, when the Con- 
 stitution has been thus violated, a Bill of Indem- 
 nity will be introduced, and will be justified, sup- 
 ported, and carried, on the very precedent which we 
 now propose to establish. Great as the evils are 
 which belong 1 to this measure, when considered by 
 itself, they sink into insignificance, when compared 
 with those which must attend its operation as an 
 example to future Ministers and future Parlia- 
 ments. Henceforward a Bill of Indemnity will 
 be regarded as the natural and necessary con- 
 sequence of a suspended Habeas Corpus. One 
 abuse will be the plea in justification of every 
 other. Whatever abuses of authority may occur, 
 however Magistrates may violate their duty, to 
 whatever extent the Law may be outraged, how- 
 ever malicious and unfounded the charges on 
 which the subject shall have been deprived of his 
 liberty, all these considerations are to be utterly 
 disregarded, because the Habeas Corpus has been 
 suspended ! 
 
 " This is to be the law of England in times to 
 come. This proceeding, with the long detail of 
 multiplied sufferings enumerated in the various 
 Petitions which lie unheeded or ridiculed on the 
 table of this House, will stand recorded in our 
 history, exhibiting a character of the present, 
 
 VOL. II. B B
 
 370 INDEMNITY BILL. 
 
 and a precedent to every future age. In this dis- 
 astrous state of things, my only consolation is, 
 that when these cruel and arbitrary measures 
 against the People of England shall be tried here- 
 after, when bad precedents shall have led to 
 worse, when the last traces of liberty shall have 
 vanished, when the tribunals of law and justice, 
 and all the venerable institutions of our fathers 
 shall have been swept away, or converted into the 
 instruments of despotism and oppression, when 
 posterity shall drain the dregs of that baleful cup 
 which is preparing for them, and shall reflect with 
 merited bitterness on the source and authors of 
 their wrongs, my only consolation is, that poste- 
 rity will also know, that among the Members of 
 this House, there were at least a few individuals 
 who saw and endeavoured to avert the threatened 
 evil, who, regardless of the overwhelming num- 
 bers, and the taunts and the exultation with which 
 a confiding majority advanced to their triumph 
 over the Constitution, remained at their posts, 
 struggling, vainly struggling to preserve that sys- 
 tem of law, justice, and liberty, which has been 
 so long the boast of this Country and the envy 
 of surrounding nations. It has been the good 
 fortune of the Ministers of the Crown to be en- 
 gaged in a succession of splendid victories abroad ; 
 but they have sullied the lustre of those glories 
 and of their own characters, by a victory over the
 
 THE LAW OF TITHES. 371 
 
 liberties of their Country; and it may now truly 
 be said, in the language of our immortal Bard, 
 
 ' That England, that was wont to conquer others, 
 Has made a shameful conquest of herself." 
 
 After a long debate, the House divided, when 
 the numbers were : 
 
 Ayes 238 
 
 Noes ------- - . - - 65 
 
 Majority in favour of the Motion - 173 
 
 THE LAW OF TITHES. 
 
 March 16th, 1818. 
 
 MR. Curwen moved the second reading of his 
 Bill for the amendment of the law in respect of 
 Tithes *. 
 
 * The Bill went to enact, 1st, that in all suits of equity in 
 which any prescription, custom, manner of Tithing, composition, 
 real, or exemption, shall come in question, the Court is authorized 
 and required to grant an issue on the prayer either of the Plaintiff 
 or the Defendant j 2dly, that where, in such suits, the defence 
 arises on a composition real, it shall be sufficient for the Defend- 
 ant to plead generally that such a composition was duly made 
 before the 13th of Eliz. and to set forth what that composition 
 was, proving it by usage, as in case of moduses, without being 
 
 BB 2
 
 37*2 THE LAW OF TITHES. 
 
 Sir William Scott, after canvassing all its dif- 
 ferent clauses, and contending that its provisions 
 would seriously affect the interests of the Clergy, 
 moved, that the Bill should be read a second time 
 that day six months. 
 
 obliged to produce the instrument of composition, or to prove 
 its execution ; 3dly, that where discharges or exemptions from 
 Tithes are claimed under dissolved monasteries and religious 
 houses, they may be proved by usage; 4thly, that grants and 
 conveyances of, and discharges from, Tithes, shall be presumed 
 against lay impropriators, from length of enjoyment; 5thly, that 
 conveyances, exchanges, compositions, and agreements made be- 
 tween the 13th of Eliz. and the year 1766, for effecting inclosures, 
 drainages, &c. whereby lands or pecuniary payments have been 
 allotted in lieu of Tithes, shall be valid, unless proved to have been 
 fraudulently obtained; Gthly, that when such conveyances, ex- 
 changes, compositions, and agreements are set aside, pecuniary 
 compensations shall cease, and the lands given in exchange shall 
 be restored to their right owners, upon petition; and if the owner* 
 cannot be discovered, shall be then vested in the overseers of the 
 parish in which they are situated, for the benefit of the poor; 
 7thly, that moduses and other compositions shall not be avoided 
 for want of precisely ascertaining the lands covered thereby, but 
 that commissions shall be issued by the Court to ascertain the 
 same, or to set out other lands sufficient to secure the same; and 
 that remedy by distress and sale shall be allowed to all persons 
 entitled to pecuniary payments by way of modus or composition, 
 in the same manner as, in cases of rent reserved upon demises or 
 leases of land; Sthly, that where moduses, compositions, or ex- 
 emptions are informally pleaded, die Court shall direct the issues 
 in the proper forms j and that parties praying frivolous and vexa- 
 tious issues shall, on the certificate of the Judge before whom 
 they are tried, b* liable to treble costs.
 
 THE LAW OF TITHES. 
 
 Sir Samuel llomilly observed, that the course 
 which the right lion. Gentleman had taken, was 
 not quite according 1 to Parliamentary usage. In- 
 stead of discussing the principle of the Bill, as 
 was usual upon the second reading, he had exa- 
 mined each particular clause, as if the Bill were 
 in a Committee. As a justification for this the 
 rig-lit hon. Gentleman was pleased to say that 
 the Bill proceeded upon no general principle, or 
 if any principle was to be found in it, it had been 
 confined to the first clause, which was now aban- 
 doned. This, however, was a most unfair repre- 
 sentation. The principle of the Bill was to place 
 Tithes on the same foundation as to evidence and 
 presumptions, with all other property; and this 
 principle would not be in any degree affected by 
 the rejection of the first clause. To that clause 
 he had always been unfavourable. He saw no 
 reason why every landholder who chose to set up a 
 modus, should at all events, whether there might, 
 or might not, be a tittle of evidence to support it, 
 have a right to have it sent, as a matter of course, 
 to be tried by a Jury. If the present state of the 
 law, as to the directing of issues, was to undergo 
 any change, he would rather take away from a 
 Rector that right, which he could hardly say by 
 law, but certainly by the present practice of the 
 Courts he was in possession of, that of having 
 every modus, however clearly established in proof, 
 
 B B 3
 
 374 THE LAW OF TITHES. 
 
 sent to be tried by a Jury, merely because it was 
 his pleasure to require it. 
 
 To the rest of the Bill Sir Samuel Romilly 
 said, that he was, for the most part, friendly, 
 though there were some clauses on which he enter- 
 tained doubts, and others which he thought ca- 
 pable of being improved in the Committee. No- 
 thing could be more unjust than to represent the 
 Bill as an invasion of property, or as calculated to 
 promote litigation. Its effect would be to secure 
 the one and to prevent the other. It would secure 
 property on the safest and most widely admitted of 
 all principles, the length of possession. He con- 
 sidered Tithes whether in the hands of the Clergy 
 or the Laity, as sacred as any other species of 
 property. The abolition of Tithes in favour of the 
 Landholder, instead of being an act of justice, 
 would be quite the contrary. It would be giving 
 the whole of the land to a person who, by himself, 
 or his ancestors, had only purchased nine tenths. 
 But though Tithes ought to have the same pro- 
 tection in the hands of their owner as any other 
 inheritance, they ought not to have that extraor- 
 dinary and superstitious protection, which they 
 in many cases enjoyed, and which was productive 
 of the greatest hardships and injustice. Why 
 should Tithes stand on a different foundation from 
 all other property? Why should a title to them 
 in a layman, instead of acquiring strength, from 
 long possession, be rendered precarious and in-
 
 THE LAW OF TITHES. 375 
 
 valid by the lapse of centuries and the consequent 
 loss of muniments? With other property, an un- 
 disturbed possession of sixty years gave a title 
 against all the world, even against the Crown. 
 But where the Church is concerned, a possession 
 of ten times that length is not sufficient to afford 
 the proprietor any security. If a modus is set up 
 as a defence against any demand of Tithes, and 
 if it can be shown, that it had its origin at any 
 time since the days of Richard I.* (that is, within 
 the last six hundred years), the modus is void. 
 
 With respect to real compositions, the disabling 
 statute of the 13th of Elizabeth, which restrained 
 them, had only a prospective operation. The Le- 
 gislature did not venture to do an act of such fla- 
 grant injustice as to- annul contracts which had 
 been made by persons who were at the time by 
 
 * Blackstone, in speajung of the time of legal memory, says, 
 ** The rule was adopted, when by the stat. of West. 1st (3 Ed. I. 
 c. Sp), the reign of Richard I. was made the time of limitation 
 in a writ of right. But since by the stat. 32 Hen. VIII. c. 2, 
 this period, in a writ of right) hath been very rationally reduced 
 to 60 years, it seems unaccountable, that the date of legal pre- 
 scription or memory, should still continue to be reckoned from an 
 xra so very antiquated." Com. B. II. p. 31, &c. There are se- 
 veral statutes for limiting the King's title to a certain time. The 
 chief of these are 21 Jac. I. c. 2, and the 9 Geo. III. c. 16 : the 
 first limiting the King to 60 years precedent to the 19th of Fe- 
 bruary ] 623, the last limiting him to 60 years before the com- 
 mencemeut of the suit or proceeding for the recovery of th 
 estate claimed. 
 
 B B 4
 
 376 THE LAW OF TITHES. 
 
 law fully competent to make them. But the in- 
 justice at which the Legislature scrupled, had 
 been done by the courts of justice, which by re- 
 fusing to receive any evidence of a real composi- 
 tion but the instrument itself, had given to the 
 statute a retrospective operation. As to the im- 
 providence with which these compositions had 
 been made, that was a good reason for passing a 
 law to prevent them for the future; but none for 
 setting aside those already made, and doing that 
 which was not done with regard to any other 
 species of property. 
 
 The right hon. Gentleman had been pleased 
 to say, that there was no great hardship in com- 
 pelling the landed proprietor to produce documen- 
 tary evidence, as it was always to be found in the 
 registries of the Bishops. With great submission, 
 he believed the right hon. Gentleman was mis- 
 taken. In the course of a long practice he had 
 never seen more than four or five of these register- 
 ed deeds; and the very statement, therefore, which 
 was made by the right hon. Gentleman, that 
 before the statute, real compositions had become 
 very frequent, contrasted with the very few in- 
 stances in which . they had since been established 
 in courts of justice, proved, in the strongest man- 
 ner, to how great an extent the decisions com- 
 plained of had operated retrospectively. 
 
 With respect to those lands which were for- 
 merly parts of the possessions of dissolved monas-
 
 THE LAW OF TITHES. 377 
 
 teries, and which in the hands of those monaste- 
 ries were exempt from the payment of Tithes, it 
 was only proposed by the Bill to dispense with the 
 necessity of proving by the production of deeds, 
 that the lands were so held, and to leave the same 
 room for presumption, from a long-enjoyed ex- 
 emption, as applied to other property. To require 
 the production of deeds in all such cases, was to 
 require that which must often be impossible. The 
 law, as now acted on, often operated to divest indi- 
 viduals of the inheritance which had descended 
 to them through a long series of generations, be- 
 cause their ancestors had not preserved and trans- 
 mitted to them those documents which, in the 
 accidents of private life, in the confusion of civil 
 wars and public tumults, must necessarily have 
 been lost or destroyed. 
 
 To so much of the Bill as related to lay-im- 
 propriators, no plausible objection could be raised ; 
 and though, since the great case of the Corporation 
 of Bury, it had been held by the Courts of Justice, 
 that nothing should be presumed against a lay, 
 any more than against an ecclesiastical, rector, 
 yet the grounds of that decision it was extremely 
 difficult to discover, or why the alienation of this 
 species of property by those who had a full right 
 to alienate it, should be proved in a different way 
 from that of all other possessions. All indeed 
 that the right hon. Gentleman could say upon this 
 part of the Bill was, that it was an innovation.
 
 378 
 
 and tlierefore dangerous, and that if the law was 
 so altered with respect to the Laity, the example 
 might be followed hereafter, so as to affect the 
 Clergy. The pretended innovation, however, was 
 only to abolish an extraordinary anomaly in our 
 law, and to make this part of it consistent with 
 the rest of our judicial system ; and there could 
 be but little danger that the example would be 
 followed unless it were recommended by its bene- 
 ficial effects. The truth was, that the present 
 law of Tithes was injurious to the Laity, to the 
 Clergy, and, what was still more important, to the 
 true interests of morality and religion. The 
 clause relating to farm moduses in the Bill before 
 them was especially required ; for, if a modus was 
 ever so well established, and the limits of the 
 farm over which it extended could not be clearly 
 traced, the whole modus was avoided. 
 
 There might be many objections to the Bill as 
 it then stood ; but to dispose of such a Bill on the 
 second reading was in effect to say, that the House 
 would not consider it. He agreed that the pro- 
 perty of the Church ought to be respected, but 
 the best way to make it so, was to prevent it from 
 being rendered an instrument of injustice. The 
 House divided, when the numbers were: 
 
 For the Second Reading - - - - 15 
 Against it -------- 44 
 
 Majority against the Bill - T - 29
 
 STEALING IN SHOPS, WAREHOUSES, &C. 379 
 
 STEALING IN SHOPS, WAREHOUSES, &c. 
 
 April Uth, 1818. 
 
 SIR Samuel Romilly moved the third reading of his 
 Bill to repeal so much of the 10th & llth of Wil- 
 liam III. as took away the benefit of Clergy from 
 persons convicted of privately stealing goods to 
 the amount of five shillings in shops, warehouses, 
 coach-houses, or stables. 
 
 The Attorney General objected, not to the Bill, 
 but to its preamble. Instead of the words which 
 stated that extreme severity was calculated to 
 afford impunity to crime, and which made the 
 change in the value of money a reason for altering 
 the Law, he proposed to substitute simply an ex- 
 pression of the expediency of repealing the Law 
 as at present constituted. 
 
 Sir Samuel Romilly thought the objections not 
 worthy of much consideration, but that the appro- 
 bation, which some Members on the other side had 
 expressed, might render it proper to offer some 
 reply. He could not accede to the amendment, 
 because it would expunge the very principle which 
 made the Bill both necessary and proper. His 
 hon. and learned Friend had spoken of the pre- 
 amble as containing abstract propositions. What
 
 380 STEALING IN SHOPS, WAREHOUSES, &C. 
 
 he had objected to as abstract propositions were 
 only the result of observations founded on long ex- 
 perience. There was an indolence of legislation 
 in modern times, which suffered Acts to be passed 
 founded on no distinct principle at all. It had 
 not been so formerly, and he was anxious to fol- 
 low the example of better times, and to conform to 
 a more reasonable standard, by stating in his pre- 
 amble the precise character of the Bill. 
 
 The principle now objected to was the very 
 foundation of the Bill. " Extreme severity " he 
 begged the House would attend to the expression, 
 " extreme severity, by rendering conviction more 
 difficult, afforded impunity to crimes." This was 
 a truth of universal notoriety. It was well known, 
 that the fear of the punishment of death following 
 conviction, had often prevented prosecutions for 
 privately stealing, and had thus afforded entire 
 impunity to the crime. He would not trouble the 
 House with a repetition of the numerous in- 
 stances which had been so frequently detailed to 
 it in exemplification of this obvious fact. He 
 would only refer to cases which had -subsequently 
 occurred in our Courts of Justice. At the last 
 Assizes for the county of Southampton, a servant 
 was convicted of robbing his master's house. On 
 account of the disproportionate severity of the 
 punishment, applications were made to the Secre- 
 tary of State for a mitigation of the sentence. 
 But all those applications were unsuccessful, and
 
 STEALING IN SHOPS, WAREHOUSES, &C. 381 
 
 the criminal was executed. In the newspapers 
 the reason assigned for the failure of these applica- 
 tions was, that the Judges had come to a resolu- 
 tion, that all servants convicted of stealing from 
 their masters should suffer death. Whether the 
 Judges had come to such a resolution he knew 
 not, nor did he pretend to censure them if they 
 had ; but if it was their resolution, it ought to be 
 declared by a legislative enactment, and not to 
 rest on a private agreement; for then servants 
 would clearly see their situation, and be perhaps 
 deterred from the crime. 
 
 But his object was to point out the effect of 
 such proceedings on the minds of Juries. At the 
 last Old Bailey sessions, within a few weeks only 
 after this statement appeared in the papers, a per- 
 son of the name of Milwood was tried for having 
 
 o 
 
 stolen property to the amount of several hundred 
 pounds from his master. The evidence was con- 
 clusive, and the Jury found him guilty, but only 
 of stealing to the value of thirty-nine shillings. 
 Could any man doubt that the Jury, in this case, 
 returned such a verdict in consequence of the 
 statement in the newspapers, of the resolution of 
 the Judges to enforce the extreme penalty of the 
 law upon all servants convicted of stealing to the 
 amount of forty shillings? He did not wish to 
 censure the Jury, although he could not adopt 
 the language of Judge Blackstone, who called 
 such verdicts, " pious perjuries." The Jury were
 
 382 STEALING IN SHOPS, WAREHOUSES, &C. 
 
 driven to the dreadful alternative of acting in op- 
 position to the awful oath they had taken, or of 
 handing over a fellow-being to the last punish- 
 ment, for a crime which had not been regularly 
 connected with such punishment. With those 
 facts in their faces, could they pretend to say 
 that the principle was not both manifest in itself, 
 and an imperative reason for altering the law r 
 
 As to the second ground of objection, could 
 any one pretend that five shillings was now the 
 same sum in value as in the reign of King Wil- 
 liam ? Was it not now equal to twenty shillings, or, 
 at least, to ten ? If so, the punishment of death 
 for now stealing to the amount of five shillings, 
 was necessarily more severe than the Act con- 
 templated, since it was applied to a sum not one 
 half the value of the sum to which the Act had 
 limited it. This was undeniably the standard 
 assumed in the Act. The standard being changed 
 by the depreciation of money, a change in the 
 Act was necessary. His hon. and learned Friend 
 had said, that if the House acted on this prin- 
 ciple now, it would pledge itself to similar con- 
 duct on all similar occasions. He had never 
 heard it urged as a reason why the House should 
 agree to any measure, that it had sanctioned the 
 principle on which it was founded in the preamble 
 of another measure. But if the House was so 
 pledged, what would be the injury ? If there was 
 any other Act on this principle; if in any other case
 
 SLAVES IN DOMINICA, &C. 
 
 extreme severity arose from the same changes, why 
 not make a similar alteration, and why should not 
 the House be pledged to it ? On these grounds 
 he would press the preamble as it now stood. 
 
 Sir Samuel Romilly was ably seconded by Mr. 
 Wilberforce; after which the proposed amendment 
 of the Attorney General was negatived without a 
 division. The Bill was then passed *. 
 
 SLAVES IN DOMINICA, &c. 
 
 April 2&7, 1818. 
 
 SIR Samuel Romilly. " I rise to submit to the 
 consideration of the House a Motion, of which I 
 gave notice a few evenings since, relating to the 
 treatment and condition of Slaves in the Island 
 of Dominica. My object in making it is to bring 
 before the House in an authentic form, all the in- 
 formation which has come to my knowledge on a 
 subject so interesting to the feelings of huma- 
 nity; to show not only the state of the law with 
 regard to Slaves in some parts of the West Indies, 
 but what is there perhaps of more importance, 
 
 * The Bill was, however, lost on the second reading, in the 
 House of Lords. /'ft!*H
 
 384 SLAVES IN DOMINICA, &C> 
 
 the mode in which that law is administered. We 
 have often heard of the efforts which have been 
 made in the colonies to meliorate the condition 
 of the Slave population ; but of what avail are 
 laws, if they are never carried into effect ? It is 
 certainly probable, that in the course of the state- 
 ments which I have to lay before the House, oc- 
 casional inaccuracies may be pointed out. These, 
 from the very nature of the transactions, no less 
 than from the distant scene of their occurrence, it 
 may be impossible altogether to avoid. But I 
 must protest against the imputation of wilfully 
 exaggerating or misrepresenting the facts which I 
 have heard. I have spared no pains to make 
 myself acquainted with the whole truth, and be- 
 lieve that the statement which I shall make, will be 
 found at least to be substantially correct. Should 
 I err in any particular, that error will consist not 
 in exaggerating, but in rather understating the 
 evils of the case. 
 
 " There are already many papers before the 
 House connected with this subject. In the last 
 Session of Parliament I obtained copies of the pre- 
 sentments made by the Grand Jury of the Island 
 of Dominica, in February 1817, and of the Bills 
 of Indictment therein referred to. These papers 
 are most important, but they do not embrace the 
 whole question. My present object, therefore, is 
 to procure such documents as shall supply the de- 
 ficiency ; for which purpose I shall move for co-
 
 SLAVES IN DOMINICA, &C. 38,> 
 
 pies or extracts of all papers in possession of the 
 Secretary of State for the Colonial Department re- 
 lative to the indictments of certain individuals 
 top cruelty to Slaves, in the Islands of Dominica 
 and Nevis ; leaving it, of course, to the proper 
 officer to withhold such documents, or parts of 
 documents, as by their production, might be detri- 
 mental to the public service. 
 
 " Having- premised thus much, I shall pro- 
 ceed to a simple detail of the facts, which have in- 
 duced me to submit this proposition to the House. 
 In the spring of 1817, several cases came 
 before the Grand Jury of Dominica, in which it 
 appeared that great cruelty had been exercised by 
 certain masters on the persons of their Slaves. 
 The first of them was a case in which John Bap- 
 tiste Louis Birmingham, Doctor of Medicine, was 
 charged with having violently, cruelly, and immo- 
 derately scourged and flogged certain Slaves, the 
 property of the said John Baptiste Louis Birming- 
 ham. These Slaves had been tried for misde- 
 meanors, of which, had they been convicted, the 
 legal punishment would have been thirty-nine 
 lashes. They were, however, acquitted ; and yet 
 their master, in spite of this verdict, had them 
 taken into the public market-place, and there 
 punished with the same rigour as if they had 
 been found guilty of the offences imputed to them. 
 Struck with this flagrant violation of law, His 
 Majesty's Attorney General preferred an Indict' 
 VOL. ii. c c
 
 386 SLAVES IN DOMINICA, &C. 
 
 ment against the master, which the Grand Jury 
 threw out. 
 
 " Another case was that in which John 
 M'Corry, Esq. was charged with having cruelly 
 and immoderately scourged and flogged his Slave, 
 Jemmy, who was accused of drunkenness, fight- 
 ing, and absence from the plantation, without a 
 written pass. This Bill also was thrown out. 
 A third case was that of Alexander le Guay of the 
 same island, planter, against whom an indictment 
 was preferred for his brutal treatment of a female 
 Slave, named Jeanton. He was charged ' with 
 having assaulted the said Jeanton, and with having 
 confined her in an iron chain, by affixing and fast- 
 ening the same with padlocks in and upon the 
 neck, arms, and legs of the said Jeanton ;' and 
 further, c with having maimed, mutilated, and 
 cruelly tortured the said Jeanton by fracturing 
 her arm.' This Bill the Grand Jury likewise 
 threw out ; and not satisfied with this denial of 
 justice, they travelled so far out of their province 
 as to present these several indictments as nothing 
 more nor less than nuisances! Their words, as 
 appears by the return made to the House, were 
 these : ' The Grand Jury have farther to present 
 the dangerous consequences w T hich are likely to 
 occur from the number of indictments for un- 
 merited punishments inflicted on Negroes by their 
 owners, managers, or employers, which have been 
 laid before them this day, unsupported by any evi-
 
 SLAVES IN DOMINICA, &C. 387 
 
 dence whatsoever; on the contrary, it appeared 
 from the evidence, that in some of the cases, the 
 Negroes merited the punishment they received.' 
 This presentment is dated Dominica, Grand Jury 
 Room, 4th February, 1817 ; and is signed by John 
 Gordon, foreman. If the statement which it con- 
 tains about the absence of all evidence in support of 
 these indictments be correct, it is no less surprising 
 that such Bills should have been preferred by the 
 Attorney General, than that they should have been 
 sanctioned by ten, out of the twenty-two who 
 composed the Grand Jury, voting in their favour. 
 " In consequence of these proceedings, the At- 
 torney General (W. W. Glanville), convinced, that 
 he could not satisfy the ends of justice by the ordi- 
 nary mode of indictment, and that it was in vain 
 to appeal to Grand Juries for the protection of 
 the black population, felt it to be his duty, in the 
 prosecution of subsequent outrages of the same 
 nature, to proceed by information. What must 
 be the state of that country where such a pro- 
 ceeding in such cases is the only means of exe- 
 cuting the law? Where the protection, which 
 the interposition of a Grand Jury affords to the 
 subject, has become a hardship of the severest 
 kind ; where, from the perverted feelings of its 
 society, that, which in this country is viewed as 
 an invidious exertion of power, namely, the in- 
 formation of the Attorney General, is the only 
 resource to the aggrieved ? The Grand Jury 
 
 cc 2
 
 388 SLAVES IN DOMINICA, &C. 
 
 made a second presentment to the same effect as 
 that which I have already described, though it 
 is not recorded. 
 
 " I am sure the House cannot but be sen- 
 sible of the evils to which the unhappy Slaves 
 must be exposed under such circumstances. If 
 the Crown Officers are deterred from interfering 
 in their behalf when oppressed, to whom are 
 they to look for assistance in obtaining redress? 
 Friends they have none, who are not in a 
 state of degradation and helplessness similar to 
 their own. Their masters are the persons 
 against whom they invoke the laws. From what 
 quarter, therefore, but from Government, can 
 they hope for aid? I am sorry to disturb the 
 disposition, which seems to exist in a part of this 
 House, to speak favourably of West India legis- 
 lation ; but of what use are laws, however benevo- 
 lent in their principle, if they are never carried 
 into execution ? There is a general concurrence 
 of opinion in the West India Islands as to the 
 impropriety of all interference between master 
 and Slave, from the supposed tendency of such 
 interference to excite in the latter, a disposition to 
 revolt. The result of this doctrine is to give to 
 the master an uncontrolled power over his Slaves. 
 " In Dominica there is a species of punish- 
 ment called c the Public Chain,' to which a master 
 may send his Slaves for any period he chooses. 
 Men, boys, and even girls of the most tender age
 
 SLAVES IN DOMINICA, &C. 389 
 
 have been subjected to this mode of torture. The 
 Governor, willing to alleviate the sufferings of 
 these wretched creatures, consulted the Attorney 
 General, who gave an opinion that he had no right 
 to remit the punishment awarded by the master. 
 Indeed it is generally held there, that though the 
 Royal mercy may be extended to Slaves guilty of 
 crimes against the state, it cannot be extended to 
 those who have rendered themselves obnoxious, 
 to the more rigorous tribunals of their arbitrary 
 masters. Perhaps the House may be ignorant of 
 the exact nature of this punishment. From a 
 work which I hold in my hand, it appears, that 
 the wretched culprits are condemned to the hard- 
 est labours. Numbers of them, frequently as 
 many as an hundred, are attached to the same 
 chain, just at a sufficient distance from one an- 
 other to be able to walk and work ; and in this 
 state, without regard to sex, age, or strength, 
 they are driven together into the plantations with 
 cattle-whips and other instruments of castigation. 
 And yet the right of the Crown to extend mercy 
 to these wretched creatures is denied! In this 
 country, the King can mitigate all punishments 
 except those which are founded on an impeach- 
 ment by the Commons ; but in Dominica this 
 prerogative is limited by the power of the masters! 
 Are these not evils to which a remedy shoul^ 
 be applied without delay? If -it can be effected 
 by colonial legislation, let it be so. It would be 
 
 ccS
 
 390 SLAVES IN DOMINICA, &C. 
 
 at all events most desirable. For my own part, 
 however, I am disposed to think that no effectual 
 remedy will be found except through the interposi- 
 tion of the British Legislature, and by their ap- 
 pointing in each island some individual wholly un- 
 connected with the Colony, having no local tie or 
 interest in it, to watch over the execution of the 
 laws. For this purpose no plan promises to be 
 more effectual than that recommended by Mr. 
 Burke to Mr. Dundas, which is, to constitute the 
 Attorney General in each island the guardian of 
 the Slaves, making their protection an essential 
 part of his duty. 
 
 " With respect to the legislation of this country 
 for her Colonies, I know that the very idea of such 
 interference has excited discontent. Yet in how 
 many instances has it taken place ! I need only 
 refer to the Act by which colonial property has been 
 made liable as assets for debt. Still we are told, 
 that it is contrary to the spirit of the British Con- 
 stitution to legislate in any case for the Colonies, 
 because the Colonies are not represented in Parlia- 
 ment. Can these objectors be serious in their 
 arguments? Can they really imagine, that British 
 freedom is to preclude all interference to mitigate 
 or correct colonial tyranny and injustice? What 
 is this but a mockery of the Constitution ? What 
 is it but to say that slavery, under the auspices of 
 liberty, is to be more dreadful than under the most 
 arbitrary government ?-^-An arbitrary government,
 
 SLAVES IN DOMINICA, &C. 
 
 according to these Gentlemen, may of itself pass 
 laws for the protection of Slaves ; but the British 
 Legislature is precluded from doing so unless the 
 masters of those wretched creatures are themselves 
 parties to the measure. The oppressed are not to 
 be relieved without the full assent and approba- 
 tion of the oppressor! This, we are told, is ac- 
 cording to the genuine spirit of the British Consti- 
 tution. But is it for the Colonists to talk of the. 
 British Constitution ? Let them have it, if such 
 be their wish ; but let them have it in every part 
 let them have it as a whole. Let them have it 
 with its equal freedom and equal rights with its 
 principles of law and justice, extending their pro- 
 tection to the meanest, no less than to the highest, 
 and proclaiming to every human being that the 
 moment he sets his foot on British ground, he is 
 free. Are these the principles which the Colonists 
 desire to establish in the West India Islands? 
 
 " I shall now call the attention of the House for 
 a few moments to another subject, to the ob- 
 stacles which have been raised in Dominica to the 
 manumission of Slaves. A Slave born on the 
 island cannot obtain his liberty without paying a 
 tax of 16/. 10*. ; others not born there are obliged 
 to pay 351. A man of colour, though a freeman 
 of another island, becomes, by the law of Domi- 
 nica, a Slave on his arrival there, unless he pro- 
 duces a certificate of his freedom, and pays a cer- 
 
 c c 4
 
 SLAVES IN DOMINICA, &0. 
 
 tain tax. This is one of the enactments of those 
 who talk of the British Constitution. A Slave, 
 once landed on the British coast, becomes a Free- 
 man ; but a Freeman of colour, the instant he 
 touches the soil of Dominica, becomes a Slave ! 
 By another law all men of colour found on the 
 island are liable to be taken up as runaways, and 
 if not claimed (which they cannot be, if they 
 have no masters), are then sold for the benefit of 
 the public! Thus are Freemen frequently exposed 
 to the same evils as Slaves, being presumed as 
 such from the mere circumstance of colour. These 
 laws cannot be too severely reprobated. They 
 are founded on principles of injustice and op- 
 pression, on principles diametrically opposite to 
 those of the .British Constitution. 
 
 " Since the Abolition Act has passed, every 
 obstacle thrown in the way of manumission, ought 
 to be removed. For, though it may be impossible 
 to emancipate at once all the Slaves of our West 
 Indian colonies, there is no man, in whose breast 
 humanity is not altogether extinct, but cherishes a 
 hope, that the day, however distant, will at length 
 arrive, when slavery shall no longer exist in any 
 part of the world. That desired event, however, 
 must be produced by the operation of gradual 
 means, by affording facilities to manumission, 
 by communicating religious and moral instruc- 
 tion, by encouraging the marriages, and improv- 
 ing the condition of the Slaves. The whole spirit
 
 SLAVES IN DOMINICA, &C. 303 
 
 of the laws to which I have alluded is completely 
 hostile to the progress of this event. Their tendency 
 is to render the wretched objects of them with 
 their offspring- from generation to generation, per- 
 petual Slaves. 
 
 " With respect to those laws of an opposite 
 description, which look so well upon paper, and 
 which seem calculated for the benefit of the Slave 
 population, they have not only been left unexe- 
 cuted, but were never, I believe, intended to be 
 executed. What was the evidence of General 
 Prevost, when Governor of Dominica, on this sub- 
 ject? In his despatch of the 1st of January 1805, 
 addressed to Lord Camden, and written in answer 
 to the inquiries of Government into the state and 
 condition of the Slaves in that Island, he says, 
 ' The Act for encouraging the better government of 
 Slaves, which passed the General Assembly of this 
 Island, appears to have been considered, from 
 the day it was enacted down to the present hour, as 
 a political measure to avert the interference of the 
 mother-country in the management of the Slaves!' 
 Is it not, however, the imperative duty of the 
 mother-country under such circumstances to inter- 
 fere? These wretched beings, though the Slaves 
 of their masters, are still subjects of the King. 
 They owe him allegiance, and are liable to be 
 punished as severely as any other men, nay more 
 so, for the violation of that allegiance. From the
 
 394 SLAVES IN DOMINICA, &C. 
 
 King, therefore, they have a right to claim pro- 
 tection. 
 
 " Of the necessity of some legislative interfer- 
 ence I think that I have already adduced suffi- 
 cient proof. But I will mention another case 
 which has also recently occurred, not indeed in 
 Dominica, but in Nevis. Though it is by no 
 means my wish to estimate the British, or any 
 other character by cases of particular cruelty, yet 
 I fear that the present case, no less than those into 
 which I have already entered, is but too illustra- 
 tive of the general feeling which prevails in the 
 West Indies on this subject. Indeed it is one of 
 the necessary though melancholy results of modern 
 slavery. The present case is that of a Mr. Hug- 
 gins, the same individual whose cruelty was once 
 before the subject of Parliamentary reprobation * 
 This Huggins, notwithstanding his conduct, is still 
 a person of considerable opulence and weight in 
 the Island of Nevis. He was formerly tried for 
 cruelty to Slaves of his own; he has lately been 
 brought to trial for cruelty to the Slaves of another. 
 
 * Huggins had been tried for having, in the market-place of 
 Nevis, in the open day, ad in the presence of several Magis- 
 trates, flogged nineteen of his Slaves with the most brutal seve- 
 rity, giving to some 212 and 242 lashes, and to one woman 291 ; 
 employing, in one instance, the brother of the victim as the mi- 
 nister of his ferocious anger. Huggins was acquitted, though the 
 proofs against him were flagrant, and though far from denying, 
 he even attempted to justify his enormities.
 
 SLAVES IN DOMINICA, &C. 396 
 
 A Mr. Cottle had appointed him his attorney on 
 leaving the island. Muggins went to the planta- 
 tion, and finding two young lads who were accused 
 of receiving a pair of stolen stockings, he ordered 
 them, on his own authority, and without the in- 
 terference of any magistrate, to be severely flogged. 
 They were stated to be very young, and not to 
 have suffered any punishment before. Huggins 
 ordered them to have 100 lashes each, though the 
 utmost legal punishment, had they been convicted 
 of the offence, would only have been 39 lashes. 
 
 *' There were present at the infliction of this 
 punishment two female slaves. One was a sister, 
 the other was a near relation, of one of the boys, 
 and had been always treated with the greatest 
 kindness by Mr. Cottle. The poor girls, unable to 
 restrain their feelings, shed tears, and for this 
 heinous offence, for conduct which would have 
 appeared meritorious in any other part of the civi- 
 lized world, Huggins ordered them to receive, 
 the one 20, and the other 25 lashes, which were 
 inflicted on them with a cart-whip. For this out- 
 rage Huggins was prosecuted by the Attorney 
 General ; but although the facts were clearly esta- 
 blished, though the defendant did not even ven- 
 ture to dispute them, he was acquitted; and this 
 interposition of the prosecutor in behalf of the 
 oppressed was held up to the reprobation of the 
 whole Colony! Such is the prejudice which exists
 
 396 SLAVES IN DOMINICA, &C. 
 
 with regard to any interference between the Mas- 
 ter and his Slave!" 
 
 After a few further observations Sir Samuel 
 Romilly read to the House the opinion of the 
 Attorney General to which he had referred in the 
 course of his speech. The substance of the opi- 
 nion was, that the Governor could not pardon a 
 Slave who had been condemned to labour by his 
 master for any offence. To be assured of this it 
 was only necessary to examine the definition of 
 slavery, from which it would appear that a Slave 
 could have no civil rights, being- the exclusive 
 property of his master, and equally transferable 
 with any other possessions. Sir Samuel Romilly 
 concluded with moving for " Copies or extracts 
 of all despatches, letters, and papers, in the 
 office of His Majesty's principal Secretary of State 
 for the Colonial Department, which in any man- 
 ner relate to the cases of John Baptiste Louis Bir- 
 mingham, Alexander Le Guay, and John M'Corry, 
 against whom bills of indictment were preferred 
 by His Majesty's Attorney General for the island 
 of Dominica, and to the presentment made by the , 
 Grand Jury of the same island, on the 4th day of 
 February 1817, and to any presentment made by 
 the Grand Jury of Dominica at any subsequent 
 period, which in any manner relate to the power 
 of the owners of Slaves in the same island to send 
 their Slaves to be kept to hard labour in the public 
 chain, and to the right which the Governor may
 
 ALIEN BILL. 397 
 
 have, by virtue of the royal prerogative, to remit 
 the punishment of Slaves so condemned by their 
 masters, to be kept to hard labour." Also, " Co- 
 pies of extracts from all despatches, letters, and 
 papers, in the office of His Majesty's principal 
 Secretary of State for the Colonial Department, 
 which in any manner relate to the case of Edward 
 Hnggins, the elder, tried in the island of Nevis, 
 in May last, for cruelty to certain Slaves under 
 his charge." 
 
 After a debate, in which Mr. Goulbnrn, Mr. 
 A. Grant, Mr. Wilberforce, &c. bore a part, the 
 Motion was agreed to. 
 
 ALIEN BILL. 
 
 May 5th, 1818. 
 
 . -. &(; Jn'l^'*' 
 
 LORD Castlereagh moved for leave to bring in a 
 Bill to continue the Alien Act. The measure was 
 strongly opposed by Lord Althorp, Mr. Lambton, 
 and Sir Samuel Romilly, the last of whom ex- 
 pressed his opinions to the following effect: " Sir, 
 I cannot suffer the question to be put without en- 
 tering my protest, even in this early stage, against 
 the proposed Act. It is so degrading to the Bri-
 
 ALIRN BILL. 
 
 tish character, so contrary to the principles of the 
 Constitution, so inconsistent with the policy of our 
 ancestors, and with the present interests and feel- 
 ings of the people, that nothing less than some 
 very strong case of necessity can warrant even the 
 proposal of it. The noble Lord has not attempted 
 to show any such case ; but has confined himself 
 to the same grounds on which he formerly pro- 
 posed the measure in 1816. Weak as those 
 grounds appeared to me at that time, they appear 
 still weaker now. There is no longer even a pre- 
 tence for such a measure; and as I opposed it in 
 1816, a fortiori I must oppose it now. It pro- 
 ceeds on a principle which though never openly 
 avowed, is now indirectly admitted, namely, that 
 the Government of England is henceforward to 
 minister to the despots of Europe. This is- to be 
 our new policy. Instead of affording, as in former 
 times, an asylum to the oppressed and persecuted 
 of all nations, this once hospitable island is to be 
 turned into a continental depot from whence fo- 
 reign tyrants may drag forth their unhappy victims 
 at pleasure! 
 
 " It is not yet twenty-four hours since we heard 
 it stated in this House, that although the burdens 
 of the people were great, yet they could afford to 
 purchase a literary collection for the support of 
 their national character. The purchase was proper, 
 but its importance to the national character sinks 
 into insignificance, when compared with the pre-
 
 ALIEN BILL. 399 
 
 sent question, when compared with the glory 
 which has accrued to this countiy from being re- 
 cognised in every quarter of the world, as the 
 great sanctuary from religious and political perse- 
 cution, as the hallowed soil where the outraged 
 victims of tyranny, where the oppressed of every 
 climate and every creed, have, in all ages, sought 
 and found a never-failing refuge! For my own 
 part, I should be the most ungrateful of men, I 
 should be unworthy, of every blessing which I 
 enjoy, if, forgetting the protection afforded by 
 English kindness and generosity to my ancestors, 
 I did not struggle to extend the boon to other 
 exiles, whether persecuted for religion or politics. 
 
 " The noble Lord has referred to 1802 as a pe- 
 riod of peace in which this measure was adopted. 
 But every one knows that in 1802 the peace was a 
 sort of armistice, during which those passions 
 which had embroiled Europe, were for a moment 
 quieted only to spring up into more acrimonious 
 hostility. But even then it was only brought for- 
 ward for one year, and that, by the Secretary of 
 State for the Home Department. Indeed it is 
 natural to think that with him such a measure 
 should originate. He is the official guardian of 
 internal tranquillity; the police of the country is 
 under his peculiar care. But in 1816 the Bill was 
 proposed not by him, but by the representative of 
 foreign potentates in this House! It was then for 
 the first time introduced bv the Secretarv of State
 
 400 ALIEN BILL. 
 
 for Foreign Affairs, and for the preservation and 
 peace of other countries! The noble Lord has 
 talked of it as a mitigated measure. In what re- 
 spect is it mitigated? It is not limited to those 
 who may hereafter come, or who have lately ar- 
 rived in this country, but extends equally to those 
 who have been long established in it. By the re- 
 turns now before the House there appear to be not 
 less than 20,000 persons who are in a manner na- 
 turalized, who have adopted this country from 
 choice, and who, from long residence and long 
 habits, have almost become Englishmen. These 
 persons are all at the mercy of Ministers; they 
 may be banished without inquiry; they may be 
 the victims of unjust slander or unfounded sus- 
 picions, without even an opportunity being allowed 
 them to refute or to combat either! 
 
 " One great injustice of which this Act is 
 guilty, and which is directly at variance with the 
 spirit of English law, is, that it goes to establish 
 every one a foreigner unless he is able to prove 
 himself a natural-born subject. It requires proofs 
 which in some cases it may be difficult even for 
 Englishmen to produce. But there is one point 
 which I am particularly desirous to press upon the 
 attention of the Members for Scotland, if there 
 are any of them new in the House. This Bill is 
 in direct violation of that great charter of their 
 rights, the Act of Wrongous Imprisonment. It 
 has never, in any part of Great Britain, been made
 
 ALIEN BILL. 401 
 
 matter of legislation, that the King should send 
 Aliens out of the country. There is only the opi- 
 nion of Judge Blackstone for such a doctrine. 
 But no one ever imagined that the King had the 
 power to send them into any other country. In 
 the treaty of Amiens it was stipulated that persons 
 charged with murder, forgery, or fraudulent bank- 
 ruptcy should be mutually delivered up by one 
 country to the other. Yet the Crown, before it 
 could perform its stipulation, found itself obliged 
 to apply to Parliament. So also in our treaty with 
 America, there was a similar stipulation, and a 
 similar application on the part of the Crown, to 
 Parliament. 
 
 " But the Act of Wrongous Imprisonment dis- 
 tinctly provides that no one shall be sent out of 
 Scotland except with his own consent, and the 
 Court of Session has decided that this enactment 
 extends to Aliens. The question was fully tried in 
 the year 1778 in the well-known case of Wedder- 
 burn and Knight. Knight was a native of Africa, 
 and had been purchased five or six years before 
 by Wedderburn, who brought him to Scotland, 
 and afterwards wished to take him back to Ja- 
 maica. Both points his condition as slave or free, 
 and his obligation to return with the man who had 
 regularly bought him, were decided by the Court 
 of Session. He was not only declared to have been 
 free from the moment he came into Britain, but it 
 was also found that he could not be again sent out 
 
 VOL. ii. D D
 
 402 ALIEN BILL. 
 
 of the country. It is true, that Parliament can 
 repeal this Act, as it has repealed the Act of Ha- 
 beas Corpus ; but at least the Members for Scot- 
 land ought to be aware of the circumstance. It 
 has not been previously noticed, though it certainly 
 deserves attention. 
 
 " I shall now sit down, repeating once more, 
 that with the opinions which I entertain of this 
 measure, considering it as utterly unnecessary, 
 as derogatory to the character of the nation, and 
 as subservient to the evil designs of other coun- 
 tries, I should but ill perform my duty, if I did 
 not resist it, in this and every other stage, to the 
 utmost of my power," 
 
 The House divided : 
 
 Ayes ----- 55 
 Noes -.-..- 18 
 
 Majority - - . - 37 
 
 ALIEN BILL. 
 
 May IQth, 1818. 
 
 LORD Castlereagh having moved the Order of the 
 Day for going into a Committee on the Alien Bill, 
 Sir Samuel RomiJly rose, and after a few prelimi-
 
 ALIEN BILL. 403 
 
 nary observations, in which he animadverted on 
 the silence of Ministers, who appeared to rely on 
 numbers, rather than on arguments, in support of 
 the proposed measure, proceeded to the following 
 effect. " There are two classes of persons to be 
 affected by this Bill. One class consists of fo- 
 reigners who may hereafter seek an asylum in 
 this country ; the other, of foreigners who have 
 already settled among us and become a part of 
 ourselves. As far as it relates to the former, its 
 execution must depend upon foreign powers. It 
 is on their suggestions alone that the executive 
 government of this country can act in preventing 
 individuals from coming here. Whether they are 
 flying from France or the Netherlands or any other 
 place, it is only by listening to the representations 
 of foreign Ministers that our Government can 
 guard itself against them. This, indeed, the ad- 
 vocates of the measure do not affect to deny. So 
 that every victim of religious and political perse- 
 cution, every unhappy man who is endeavouring 
 to shelter himself here from the dangers of his 
 own country, from the terrors of the Holy Inqui- 
 sition, the tyranny of the King of Sardinia, or 
 the despotism of any of the other Governments 
 which we have established on the ruins of the 
 free and independent States of Europe, is to be 
 driven back from our shores, is to be deprived of 
 an asylum on the bare suggestion of a foreign mi- 
 nister, on statements perhaps made to our Go- 
 
 D D *2
 
 404 ALIEN BILL. 
 
 vernment by the very persecutors and enemies of 
 the unfortunate exile. 
 
 " An hon. Member (Mr. C. Grant) has said 
 that this measure is not levelled against foreigners 
 in general, but only against those turbulent 
 spirits who are still seeking to disturb the peace of 
 Europe, against the idolaters of the Goddess of 
 Reason, and the worshippers of Napoleon Buona- 
 parte. According to the arguments of the hon. 
 Gentleman, the present Bill, instead of continu- 
 ing in force for only two years, is likely to last as 
 long as the lives of those whom he has addressed. 
 It is to survive the principles of the French Revo- 
 lution, and the whole race of Buonaparte; it is 
 to remain on the Statute-book, until after the ex- 
 tinction of all persons, who shall be supposed to 
 entertain a friendly disposition towards either. 
 
 " Another right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bat- 
 hurst) has said that good men have nothing to 
 fear from the existence of this power in the hands 
 of Ministers, and that its only effect will be to 
 deter bad men from approaching the country. But 
 how are Ministers to learn the real state of the 
 case? How are they to distinguish between the 
 evil and the good? Acting as they do upon secret 
 information, hearing only one side of the ques- 
 tion, how are they to know whether the charge 
 against the individual has really originated in 
 truth, or whether it is the mere suggestion of po- 
 litical enmity and private malice? In Spain,
 
 ALIEN BILL. 405 
 
 when a person is brought before the Inquisition, 
 he is asked , without knowing any thing of the 
 specific charges against him, whether there is no- 
 thing which he has said against the orthodox prin- 
 ciples of the Catholic religion, and he is left to 
 ponder in his mind what he could have said. So 
 in this country, after the present Bill shall have 
 passed, the unfortunate individual will be asked, 
 if he has said nothing against the doctrines of le- 
 gitimate governments, if he has insinuated no- 
 thing against the family on the throne? Does any 
 one really suppose that the unfortunate foreigner, 
 who may seek an asylum in this country, can be 
 safe under the exercise of such powers? Can any 
 one believe, that if the ministers of Charles II. and 
 James II. had been invested with similar autho- 
 rity, those monarchs would have had their eyes 
 offended by the crowd of Protestants who fled to 
 this country for protection? No ; if the same 
 powers had existed in those times, the persecuted 
 Protestants would not have ventured to seek an 
 asylum in England. But they came hither, be- 
 cause they relied on what they knew to be the 
 constitution of this country; because they relied 
 on the character, the hospitality, the 'public law 
 of this country. It was not to Charles or James, 
 it was not to the mean pensioners of their tyrant, 
 that these Refugees turned their eyes in the hour 
 of need. No ; it was on the laws and the consti- 
 tution of this country 'that they relied for an 
 D D 3
 
 406 ALIEN BILL. 
 
 asylum, for a protection as well against the King 
 of England as against the King of France! How 
 is our character now changed ! How is our glory 
 fallen, when, from being the enemies of tyrants, 
 the shelterers of the oppressed, we present our- 
 selves to the world as the ready agents and willing- 
 slaves of despotic power ! 
 
 " An hon. Gentleman has spoken of the hos- 
 pitality of this country towards foreigners du- 
 ring the last twenty-five years, as more conspi- 
 cuously evinced than at any other period of our 
 history. Neither the times of Queen Elizabeth, 
 nor those of any of her successors, he de- 
 clares, can vie with the period in which we have 
 had an Alien Bill. An opinion more destitute of 
 all foundation, I will boldly affirm, has been never 
 expressed. It is utterly absurd to say that more 
 protection has been shown to persecuted indivi- 
 duals- in the last twenty-five years, than during 
 the reigns of James I. and Charles I. Charles II. 
 and James II. The hospitality of latter times has 
 been party, not national hospitality. It has been 
 extended by the Government to the French and 
 other royalists ; but for the sufferers in support of 
 freedom, for those who had incurred the odium 
 of being friends to the popular cause, even before 
 it degenerated into its unhappy excesses, they 
 have been driven across the Atlantic to seek an 
 asylum. 
 
 " A right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bathurst) has
 
 ALIEN BILL. 407 
 
 said that the paper alluded to in the case of Mr. 
 Befort was found among his baggage, just as he 
 was about to be sent out of the country. Now it 
 may not be difficult to explain how it came there." 
 
 Mr. BATHURST. " I beg leave to explain. I 
 believe the fact was, that the Custom-house Officers 
 thought it their duty to examine the articles which 
 the individual in question wished to take with him; 
 and in doing so, they discovered that paper*." 
 
 Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY. " I thank the right 
 hon. Gentleman for this explanation. It seems 
 then, that the paper was not sought for, but was 
 merely discovered in searching the baggage, and 
 
 * M. Befort had been for several years settled in London, 
 where he kept a shop and possessed considerable personal pro- 
 perty. He was sent out of the country in August 1813, after 
 having had both his person and his luggage most strictly searched. 
 Nothing suspicious was found, and it was not until the moment of 
 his leaving, or (according to the statement of Mr. Lyttelton) un- 
 til after he had left the country, that a correspondence between 
 the Pope and the Irish Catholics and the Father of the Order of 
 La Trappe, was discovered in a portfolio which had been pre- 
 viously examined. Whether M. Befort was privy to these papers, 
 or whether they were forgeries placed amongst his luggage by a 
 person who had been with him, and who contrived to appropriate 
 to himself several hundred pounds found in the portfolio, it is im- 
 possible to determine. Certainly the subsequent conduct of M. 
 Befort did not betray any consciousness of guilt. Though liable 
 to severe punishment, if convicted of the imputed offence, he 
 returned to England in 1814, to arrange his affairs, which he wa 
 only prevented from doing,by being again sent out of the country. 
 
 B D 4
 
 408 ALIEN BILL. 
 
 certainly it would not be fit to say much against 
 the delicacy of Custom-house Officers. In the 
 case of Las Casas the papers were never examined. 
 In that of De Berenger they were made use of to 
 convict him of a misdemeanor, but they were 
 most illegally made use of. 
 
 " As far as this measure relates to foreigners 
 who may seek to reside here, it is calculated 
 merely to cany into execution the tyrannical in- 
 tentions of foreign powers. As for those who have 
 long domiciled here, as for that large description 
 of persons who have been engaged in active and 
 honest pursuits, of what crime have they been 
 convicted, that they are thus to be put out of the 
 pale and protection of law? Are any of them to 
 be driven from this country because Ministers 
 may be told, on secret information, that they are 
 Buonapartists in their heart, that they wish to 
 overthrow the dynasty of the Bourbons ? On this 
 subject I cannot do better than to beg the House 
 to recall to its recollection the sound principles 
 laid down in the speech of an hon. Gentleman 
 (Mr. F. Douglas) on a former night; a speech 
 indeed which remains unanswered a speech 
 which the noble Lord opposite has deemed un- 
 worthy of a reply, but a speech which I consider 
 to be one of the most able and effective that has 
 ever been heard within the walls of this House. 
 
 ' What is the answer which has been given to 
 these arguments ? The only answer which I have 
 heard, is, that this power will not be abused, that
 
 ALIEN BILL. 409 
 
 it is to be reposed in safe hands, that confidence 
 ought to be placed in the character of the noble 
 Lord, whose official duty it is to superintend its 
 exercise! Is this an answer to satisfy the Country? 
 To satisfy any rational man? I am against ty- 
 ranny in any hands. Ministers may or may not 
 have abused this power. I will suppose that they 
 have not; for it would have been prejudicial to 
 their own interests to do so. Though aiming sys- ' 
 tematically at arbitrary power, though proceed- 
 ing step by step to the subversion of every consti- 
 tutional bulwark, they still would not be such 
 idiots as to excite the alarms of the Country by a 
 premature abuse of their authority. 
 
 " As to the character of the noble Secretary of 
 State for the Home Department, on whom so many 
 compliments have been lavished, I must repeat 
 what I have often said before, that I see in it no- 
 thing that can induce me to invest him with unne- 
 cessary power. I am ready to acknowledge his 
 integrity and worth as a private individual ; but 
 the noble Lord now stands before us as a public 
 man, and in that character I can allow him no ap- 
 probation. I have never seen in him any regard 
 for liberty : I have never witnessed in him any 
 veneration or respect for the excellent principles of 
 our recorded Constitution. When I consider the 
 part he has borne in the Suspension of the Habeas 
 Corpus Act ; when I reflect on his refusal to hear 
 the petitions of the unhappy persons who have 
 been imprisoned under that suspension; when I
 
 410 ALIEN BILL. 
 
 recollect his uncalled-for interference with the du- 
 ties of the English magistracy, urging them to 
 hold to bail before indictment, all persons accused 
 of libel, when I recall these and numberless 
 other acts of the noble Lord in his character of 
 Secretary of State, I declare, that there is not a 
 man in the Country in whose hands I should be 
 more unwilling to intrust the exercise of discre- 
 tionary power. The noble Lord has not abused 
 the powers which have been before committed to 
 him under the Alien Act; so his advocates affirm, 
 and so I am desirous to believe. Still, how are we 
 to know the fact? The House has been kept in 
 darkness upon the subject ; every proposition for 
 inquiry into particular cases has been uniformly 
 resisted and refused by Ministers. And yet there 
 are men who can vote to reinvest them with these 
 high powers, without any necessity being shown, 
 without a single argument advanced, to justify the 
 demand! This is a most fatal blow to the cha- 
 racter of the Country. The result of such con- 
 duct will be, that when our freedom is lost, we 
 shall not have the compassion of any nation in the 
 world. A people so regardless of the liberties of 
 others, it will be said, did not deserve to enjoy 
 their own." 
 
 The House divided : 
 Ayes --------- 99 
 
 Noes ------i.-- 32 
 
 Majority in favour of the Motion - 67
 
 IMPRISONMENT FOR LIBEL. 411 
 
 IMPRISONMENT FOR LIBEL. 
 
 May 21**, 1818. 
 
 MR. Bennet moved for a Committee to inquire 
 into the petitions of Jonathan Mellor, Samuel 
 Pilling-, and Robert Swindells *. After a few ob- 
 servations from Mr. Davenport and Mr. Black- 
 burne, the House was about to divide, when the 
 Attorney General rose and opposed the Motion at 
 some length. 
 
 Sir Samuel Romilly said, that his hon. and 
 learned Friend had not touched upon the most 
 important points of the question. Notwithstand- 
 ing the disregard with which subjects of this kind 
 had been treated during the Session, he could not 
 have thought it possible that His Majesty's Minis- 
 ters would have sent the present Motion to a divi- 
 sion without some explanation, and yet that appear- 
 ed to be the course on which they had almost de- 
 cided. (No, No, from the Treasury Bench.) He 
 was sure that strangers had been ordered to with- 
 draw, and that the gallery was almost cleared 
 before his hon. and learned Friend had risen. 
 
 Sir Samuel Romilly did not deny that, as far 
 as his hon. and learned Friend was concerned, 
 these men had been treated with lenity. He did 
 not, however, very well see why the proceedings 
 
 * See pagct 340 and 352 of this volume.
 
 412 IMPRISONMENT FOR LIBEL. 
 
 had been removed by certiorari ; such cases ought 
 to be brought to trial without delay. But this 
 was not the part of the subject which he thought 
 of most importance. It was the fettering of men 
 charged with the publication of a libel. Had 
 any person stated a few years ago that such 
 a transaction would take place at this day, no 
 one would have believed him. The thing would 
 have appeared too monstrous to be credited. Why 
 were these men confined in irons ? They had not 
 committed felony ; and, even if they had, they 
 had not been legally convicted. He agreed that 
 the libel with which they were charged, was ex- 
 tremely reprehensible ; but he denied that it was 
 blasphemous ; it could not be called so, either in 
 the common or the legal acceptation of the word. 
 His lion, and learned Friend had admitted, 
 that the magistrates had, in some degree, ex- 
 ceeded their authority. Was this all that he 
 said of such a proceeding? Was this the man- 
 ner in which he spoke of such a novelty as 
 putting men in fetters on the mere charge of 
 Libel? Recollecting the liberal opinions which 
 his hon. and learned Friend, in the early part 
 of his life, had so ardently entertained, he was 
 astonished that such a violation of law had not 
 made a deeper impression on his mind, that it 
 had not excited his sympathy, and roused his 
 indignation. Acting, as he did, in a magiste- 
 rial capacity, as well for the People as the 
 Crown, it was extraordinary that these things
 
 IMPRISONMENT FOR LIBEL. 413 
 
 had not affected him in a stronger manner. In 
 the Courts below, the Attorney General might 
 consider it his peculiar duty to defend the prero- 
 gatives of the Crown against every attack upon 
 them; but, in that House, he was sitting as one 
 of the representatives of the People as a guar- 
 dian of their rights a conservator of their liber- 
 ties. Would his hon. and learned Friend, in the 
 early part of his life, have endured that irons 
 should be placed on men charged with the publica- 
 tion of what Country Magistrates might deem 
 Libels ? Was it not notorious that many persons 
 construed every publication, offensive to the feel- 
 ings of men in power, a Libel ? Was not the 
 very respectful Petition of the Bishops in the reign 
 of James II. considered a Libel ? Let, then, the 
 House of Commons remember, that they were 
 that night deciding whether their constituents were 
 to be placed in irons, at the discretion of Magis- 
 trates, previously to their trial, for offences, 
 which, even if they were convicted, would not 
 subject them to such extraordinary rigour. 
 
 Mr. Blackburn here observed, that the letter 
 which he had received from the Magistrates stated, 
 that these persons had been kept in the work- 
 house, by a fireside, and were merely chained by 
 the leg to prevent them from running away. 
 
 Sir Samuel Romilly said, he was sure the hon. 
 Member would not deny that they had been con- 
 fined in the House of Correction with the usual
 
 414 IMPRISONMENT FOR LIBEL. 
 
 precautions ; and Mr. Blackburn admitted this to 
 be the case. 
 
 Sir Samuel Romilly replied, that this was what 
 he meant. The usual precautions, however, were 
 nothing 1 more nor less than irons. As to any com- 
 forts which the hon. Member might think these men 
 had enjoyed, what comforts would compensate for 
 a species of torture so degrading- and cruel to per- 
 sons in their situation ? Surely there were cir- 
 cumstances in this case, if any regard for the 
 liberty of the subject existed in that House, suffi- 
 cient to demand investigation. The houses of the 
 petitioners had been searched for papers, and 
 papers, called Libels, had been seized and taken 
 away. Rollin's Ancient History, Law's Serious 
 Call, and the Evangelical Magazine, had been 
 seized, because they were in company with the 
 Liverpool Mercury and some of Cobbett's Re- 
 gisters. Such proceedings were most reprehen- 
 sible. Lord Camden had severely reproved 
 such practices ; he had declared, that the sacred- 
 ness of a person's private papers should never 
 be violated on the presumption of their being 
 libellous. Would any man venture to write as 
 Sydney and Locke had done, if his papers were 
 exposed to the search and seizure of every country 
 Magistrate and illiterate Constable? Yet such 
 were the fruits of Lord Sidmouth's Circular Let- 
 ter that most unconstitutional interposition with 
 the duties of the Magistracy. 
 
 " Can the House" (said Sir Samuel Romilly
 
 ALIEN BILL. 415 
 
 in conclusion) " refuse to inquire into these facts ? 
 In all other cases the inclination is to presume 
 with the oppressed against the oppressor ; but on 
 political questions, I regret to say, that however 
 severe the injustice, however harsh the agent, 
 be he Minister, Magistrate, or Constable, the 
 general feeling of this House is to decide against 
 the complaints of the People." 
 The House divided : 
 
 Ayes ---------17 
 
 Noes -- 73 
 
 Majority against the Inquiry 56 
 
 ALIEN BILL. 
 
 June 5th, 1818. 
 
 SIR J. Mackintosh presented a Petition from 
 George Oppenheimer and others against a clause 
 introduced by the House of Lords into the Alien 
 Bill. The Petition set forth, that the peti- 
 tioners had been proprietors of stock in the Bank 
 of Scotland, since the 28th day of April last, hav- 
 ing purchased such stock upon information given 
 to them, that by the Act of the Scotch Parliament 
 in 1695, establishing the Bank of Scotland, they 
 should thereby acquire the rights and privileges
 
 416 ALIEN KILL. 
 
 of British subjects ; that they had been long re- 
 sident in this country, carrying on business as 
 merchants, and that most of them had children 
 born in this country ; that they were willing to 
 conform to all regulations prescribed in the case of 
 foreigners who become naturalized by Act of Par- 
 liament; and having purchased stock in the Bank 
 of Scotland upon full and entire faith in the law, as 
 it stood when they became proprietors of such 
 stock, and having a confident belief that no per- 
 son in this country was ever deprived of his 
 rights by a retrospective law, they prayed, that 
 the Bill then before Parliament might not ex- 
 tend to disfranchise them of their just rights 
 legally acquired since the 28th day of April last. 
 
 Mr. Tierney moved, " That the said Petition 
 be referred to a Committee, to examine and report 
 the matter thereof to the riouse." 
 
 Lord Castlereagh said, he should oppose the 
 Motion. The facts of the case were known, and, 
 therefore, it was unnecessary to enter into any 
 investigation. The petitioners had taken a short 
 cut they had obtained their rights by a fraud 
 on the law. Would the Legislature suffer itself 
 to be defeated in its object by an obsolete Act 
 of the Scotch Parliament, by which all pur- 
 chasers of stock took themselves out of the class 
 of Aliens, and, of course, freed themselves from 
 the operation of this Bill? The retrospective 
 nature of the clause had been complained of. 
 3
 
 ALIEN BILL. 417 
 
 But this was a quality by no means uncommon in 
 Acts of Parliament. The Bill for regulating the 
 residence of the Clergy had a retrospective effect ; 
 and there were various other precedents of the 
 same nature. As to the Scotch Act, he was not 
 prepared to say what the Government might 
 eventually recommend respecting it : its final fate 
 was not at issue : what the House had to deter- 
 mine was, whether or not it should be suspended 
 during the continuance of the Alien Bill. 
 
 Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY. " Sir, I rise to sup- 
 port the Motion of my right hon. Friend for refer- 
 ring this Petition to a Committee; and if the 
 House has the least regard for principle, if it is 
 not determined to act in violation of all law and 
 justice, I cannot conceive it possible for any ef- 
 fectual opposition to be made to the proposed in- 
 quiry. Since I have had the honour of a seat in 
 this House, I have never seen a Petition of greater 
 importance, considering the nature of it in itself, 
 and the extraordinary doctrines with which it has 
 been met by the noble Secretary of State. The 
 noble Lord has said, that there is no occasion to 
 refer the Petition to a Committee, because the 
 House already knows all the facts of the case. 
 The House does not know the facts of the case. 
 The noble Lord himself does not know the facts 
 of the case. The noble Lord has asserted, that 
 if an Alien buys and holds stock of the Bank of 
 Scotland for twenty-four hours, he becomes en- 
 
 VOL. II. K E
 
 418 ALIEN BILL. 
 
 titled to all the privileges of a natural-born sub- 
 ject. How does the noble Lord know that ? Has 
 he the Act? If he is in possession of it, let him 
 produce it ; though he is quite mistaken, if he 
 thinks the repeal of only one Act necessary. It 
 will be necessary to repeal no less than five Acts of 
 Parliament. The individuals in question are not 
 entitled to their claims merely by the Scotch Act. 
 They are no less entitled to them by Acts of the 
 English Parliament. 
 
 " The exact terms of the Scotch Act which 
 was passed in 1695, it is not in my power to 
 state, from the impossibility (such has been the 
 haste of the advocates of the present mea- 
 sure) to procure it. Its object, however, was 
 to create the Bank of Scotland with a capital of 
 ^100,000. In 1774, it being thought proper to 
 increase the capital ; an Act was passed by the 
 British Parliament the Act of the 14th Geo. III. 
 c. 32 increasing it to^200,000; and, in the 
 17th section of this Act, it is declared, that the 
 Act of the Scotch Parliament in 1695, shall re- 
 main in full force as to every particular, except 
 as far as the same might be altered by the Act 
 then passed ; and that the provisions of the Act of 
 1695 shall operate with regard to the new stock, as 
 it had operated with regard to the old ; in other 
 words, that all purchasers of the new, no less than 
 of the old stock of the Bank of Scotland, shall be- 
 come naturalized subjects.
 
 ALIEN BILL. 419 
 
 " In the 32d Geo. III. another Act was passed, 
 farther increasing the capital of the Bank of Scot- 
 land ; and in the 34th Geo. III. another ; both de- 
 claring, that the Act of 1695 shall remain in full 
 force in the particulars which I have mentioned. 
 This has been done altogether five several times ; 
 and yet, in the teeth of these repeated Acts of 
 Parliament, the noble Lord asserts, that the 
 individuals in question have obtained their rights 
 by fraud of an Act of Parliament ! A monstrous 
 assertion ! Does the noble Lord a Minister of 
 the Crown, high in the confidence of the Prince 
 Regent mean to assert, that it is not perfectly 
 justifiable in these persons to purchase the stock 
 in question, in order to become naturalized? Why, 
 it was the very advantage held out in order to in- 
 duce Aliens to become proprietors of that stock. 
 When the Bank of Scotland was established, 
 which was a year before the establishment by char- 
 ter of the Bank of England, it was a boon offered 
 to Aliens to tempt them to become proprietors. 
 This boon the individuals in question have accept- 
 ed, and now the noble Lord calls that acceptance 
 a fraud on the Act of Parliament ! To. take it 
 away would be a fraud on the part of Parliament. 
 Parliament has offered certain conditions to 
 Aliens ; and when, relying on the faith of Parlia- 
 ment, they accept them, Parliament withdraws 
 its part of the consideration, and puts the Alien 
 purchaser in the situation of being compelled to 
 
 E K 2
 
 420 ALIEN BILL. 
 
 y 
 
 sell the stock which he has purchased for a par 
 ticular purpose, at the reduced price to which it 
 must necessarily be lowered. 
 
 " The noble Lord has appealed to precedents 
 and to past times. Does the House recollect 
 what was done in the reign of Queen Anne ? In 
 the 7th of Anne, an Act was passed, naturalizing 
 all Protestants on their landing in this country. 
 [Hear! from Lord CastlereaghJ] I know the 
 meaning of the noble Lord's cheer. The Act of 
 the 7th of Anne was thought inconvenient, and 
 was therefore repealed in the 10th year of the same 
 reign. But how was it repealed ? Did the states- 
 men of that day dare to take away the privileges 
 which had been previously conferred by it ? No. 
 The repealing Act was wholly prospective in its ope- 
 ration. Far from prejudicing or impeaching by its 
 enactments the naturalization of those who had 
 taken the benefit of the former Bill, it even allowed 
 three months for others, who might be on their 
 way to this country, to come in and to entitle 
 themselves to the same privileges. But what is 
 the character of the present measure? A thing 
 so extravagant, so contrary to all law, so com- 
 pletely in violation of all justice, was never thought 
 of before the time of the noble Lord and his col- 
 leagues. And what is worse, this wrong has 
 emanated from that branch of the Legislature 
 which is the supreme Court of Justice in the 
 
 2
 
 ALIEN BILL. 421 
 
 Country ; it has proceeded from men who fill the 
 highest judicial offices who have sworn to ad- 
 minister justice with impartiality ! 
 
 " Those persons have indeed taken * a short 
 cut,' as the noble Lord calls it. They did not ven- 
 ture to introduce the proposition into a Bill, 
 where it would be repeatedly canvassed and dis- 
 cussed. No they have taken care that there shall 
 be only one question upon it, by making it an ad 
 dition to a Bill already discussed. Much stress is 
 frequently laid on the forms of Parliament. Here 
 all forms have been violated. The House of Com- 
 mons sent to the House of Lords a Bill continu- 
 ing an existing law ; the House of Lords returns it 
 with the repeal of an existing law. And this they 
 call an addition to the Bill! By this proceeding 
 they tell the House of Commons, ' Either the Bill 
 to which you have agreed, shall not pass into 
 a law at all, or it shall be accompanied by an 
 amendment which we have added to it, and which 
 is wholly alien to its original object.' And this is 
 done on the presumption, that the hurry at the 
 close of a Session will prevent the House of 
 Commons from having any alternative. A mon- 
 strous proceeding! 
 
 " There is another view of the case which is 
 
 most important. I do not profess to be very 
 
 learned in the law of Parliament; but unless I 
 
 utterly mistake that law, the House of Com- 
 
 E E 3
 
 422 ALIEN BILL. 
 
 raons cannot, consistently with its privileges, agree 
 to this amendment. For observe, what is its 
 effect ? To subject a large description of persons 
 to the alien duties. This is one part of its in- 
 justice. Another is, the forfeiture of estates. 
 Suppose that among the forty-nine persons who 
 are said to have availed themselves of the Scotch 
 Act, there are some who have done so for the pur- 
 pose of purchasing estates. Is the House aware, 
 that the effect of this clause will be to make those 
 persons forfeit the estates so purchased ? If aware 
 of it, will the House be so regardless of every 
 principle of law and justice as to consent to the 
 proposition ? 
 
 " But to revert to the law of Parliament. I 
 have been looking into authorities to see how that 
 law stands with respect to the circumstance which 
 I have mentioned ; and I find, that the House of 
 Commons has rejected amendments made by the 
 House of Lords, in cases much more remotely 
 connected with the privileges of the Commons 
 than this clause by which alien duties are im- 
 posed. The last precedent in Mr. Hatsell's work, 
 was in 1791, when the House of Commons threw 
 out a Bill returned to them by the House of 
 Lords, for regulating the distribution of rewards 
 in cases of felony, because the House of Lords 
 had diminished one of the rewards. The House 
 of Commons rejected this as an interference with 
 their privileges. But how inferior an interference
 
 ALIEN BILL. 423 
 
 was it to the present, in which the House of 
 Lords proposes to tax individuals! In 1787, the 
 House of Lords made an amendment to a Bill 
 sent up to them from the House of Commons re- 
 specting Horsham Gaol; which amendment was 
 to the effect, that Horsham Gaol should be re- 
 paired in the same manner as other gaols were, 
 that was, by a county rate. But even this clause, 
 indirect as it was, was sufficient to procure the re- 
 jection of the Bill by the House of Commons. 
 To originate money Bills is one of the most im- 
 portant privileges of the House of Commons, and 
 one which ought to be vigilantly guarded; and I 
 do conceive that the present is a case in which 
 that privilege ought to be strongly asserted. The 
 Act respecting the stock of the Bank of Scotland, 
 is only one of many Acts in which Parliament has 
 held out to Aliens the advantage of becoming na- 
 turalized. Service by Aliens in the Fleet and 
 Army, residence of Aliens in the Colonies for va- 
 rious periods, and other acts, entitle foreigners, 
 in many instances, to all the privileges of natural- 
 born subjects. 
 
 " The noble Lord, in justification of the re- 
 trospective character of the clause, has referred 
 to the Act by which actions against the Clergy for 
 non-residence were suspended. I do not conceive 
 that Act to have been altogether justifiable, al- 
 though there were circumstances which lessened 
 the objections to it; but, at any rate, it ought to 
 
 4
 
 424 ALIEN BILL. 
 
 be remembered, that it was not passed without 
 hearing the individual who was to be affected by it. 
 I am sure that it little occurred to many hon. 
 Members, who agreed to that Act, that it would 
 be adduced as a precedent in a case like the pre- 
 sent. Thus it is, that, availing themselves of pre- 
 cedent after precedent, the noble Lord and his 
 colleagues proceed, step by step, to invade and de- 
 stroy the liberties of the Country. On the pre- 
 sent occasion, however, if the noble Lord is de- 
 termined to follow such a precedent, let him fol- 
 low it in every part. Let the House at least hear 
 the individuals against whom this retrospective 
 law is directed. Let it not deprive them of 
 rights (which they have acquired in the due course 
 of law, and to which they are as much en- 
 titled as any man here is to the rights which he 
 enjoys), without at all knowing whether they are 
 deserving of such punishment or not. As no of- 
 fence has been imputed to them, we must naturally 
 presume that they are innocent. Under such cir- 
 cumstances how can we visit them with the pe- 
 nalties of guilt? How can we refuse even to hear, 
 or to appoint a Committee to examine and report 
 upon the facts of their case r 
 
 " Sir, I do not know what course the House is 
 about to adopt ; although, from the eagerness with 
 which the question has been taken up on the 
 other side, I cannot help suspecting what that 
 course will be, a course utterly unwarrantable as
 
 ALIEN BILL. 425 
 
 it regards the individuals more immediately con- 
 cerned, and wholly repugnant to the spirit of all 
 Parliamentary proceeding. Deeply involved as our 
 privileges are in the question, yet as this Parlia- 
 ment will, in all probability, be dissolved in a very 
 short peiiod, I fear its last act will be an act of 
 signal injustice. Such, however, will be a fit close 
 of the greater part of our proceedings. Apprehend- 
 ing that we are within a few hours of the termina- 
 tion of our political existence, before the moment 
 of dissolution arrives, let us reflect on the deeds for 
 which we have to account. Let us recollect, that 
 we are the Parliament which, for the first time in the 
 history of this Country, twice suspended the Ha- 
 beas Corpus Act in a period of profound peace. Let 
 us recollect, that we are the confiding Parliament 
 which intrusted His Majesty's Ministers with the 
 authority emanating from that Suspension, in ex- 
 pectation that, when it was no longer wanted, 
 they would call Parliament together to surrender 
 it into their hands which those Ministers did not 
 do, although they subsequently acknowledged, 
 that the necessity of retaining that power had 
 long ceased to exist. Let us recollect, that we 
 are the same Parliament which consented to in- 
 demnify His Majesty's Ministers for those abuses 
 and violations of the law of which they had been 
 guilty, in the exercise of the authority thus vested 
 in them ; that we are the same Parliament, 
 which refused to inquire into the grievances stated
 
 426 ALIEN BILL. 
 
 in the numerous Petitions under which our table 
 groaned, that we turned a deaf ear to the com- 
 plaints of the oppressed that we even amused 
 ourselves with their suffering's! Let us recollect 
 that we are the same Parliament which sanctioned 
 the employment of Spies and Informers by the 
 British Government, debasing that Government, 
 once so celebrated for good faith and honour, 
 into a condition lower in character than that of 
 the ancient French police. Let us recollect that 
 we are the same Parliament which sanctioned 
 the issuing of a Circular Letter to the Magistracy 
 of the Country, by a Secretary of State, urging 
 them to commit and hold to bail for libel before 
 indictment found, and promulgating the opi- 
 nions of the King's Attorney and Solicitor Ge- 
 neral, as the law of the land. Let us recollect, 
 that we are the same Parliament which sanctioned 
 the shutting of the ports of this once hospitable 
 nation against unfortunate foreigners flying from 
 persecution in their own country. 
 
 " This, Sir, is what we have done ; and we 
 are about to crown the whole by the present most 
 violent and unjustifiable act. Who our succes- 
 sors may be, I know not ; but God grant that this 
 Country may never see another Parliament as re- 
 gardless of the liberties and rights of the people, 
 and of the principles of general justice, as this 
 Parliament has been." 
 
 Mr. Tierney's Motion was supported by Mr. W.
 
 ALIEN BILL. 427 
 
 Smith and Sir A. Piggott, and opposed by the At- 
 torney General and the Chancellor of the Exche- 
 quer. The Speaker, however, having intimated his 
 opinion, that the amendment proposed by the Lords 
 did interfere with the peculiar privileges of the 
 House of Commons, Lord Castlereagh consented 
 to abandon it ; and Mr. Tierney consequently 
 withdrew his Motion *. 
 
 * The proposed amendment was afterwards embodied by 
 Ministers into a separate Bill, which passed in all its stages, 
 through the House of Commons, on the 8th of June, and through 
 the House of Lords on the following day.
 
 [The following Speeches of Sir Samuel Romilly, 
 though not delivered in the House of Commons, 
 are still too intimately connected tvith his prin- 
 ciples and conduct as a Legislator and Politician 
 to be omitted in this
 
 429 
 
 BANKRUPT LAWS. 
 
 THE following is the examination of Sir Samuel 
 Romilly, contained in a Report of the Select Com- 
 mittee appointed to consider of the Bankrupt 
 Laws, which was presented to the House of Com- 
 mons on the 16th of March 1818. 
 
 " The Bankrupt Laws " (said Sir Samuel Ro- 
 milly) " appear to me to be in many respects ex- 
 tremely defective, and to require much alteration. 
 The penal part of them, as being- first in import- 
 ance, requires first to be considered. If a Bankrupt 
 do not surrender to his commission, he is, under 
 the statute of 5 Geo. II. punishable with death. If 
 he surrender, but omit to make a full disclosure 
 of his property, and withhold part of it to the 
 amount of 207. from his creditors, he is also, by 
 the same statute, punishable with death. This 
 excessive severity (as always happens where seve- 
 rity is excessive) defeats its object. The cruelty 
 of the law prevents its execution; and though 
 these offences are extremely common, nothing is 
 more uncommon than the punishment of them. 
 Since the statute was enacted, which is now more 
 than eighty-five years, few years have passed in 
 which various instances of these offences have not 
 occurred ; and yet there have not, I believe, been 
 more than three examples of the law having been
 
 430 BANKRUPT LAWS. 
 
 executed. These very examples, too, have had 
 upon the whole, rather a tendency to multiply 
 crimes ; they have had more effect in preventing 
 prosecutions, than occasions for prosecution, and 
 have in a great degree made the law, for want of 
 prosecutors, a dead letter. 
 
 " In other cases of inordinately severe pu- 
 nishments, private individuals are often induced 
 to prosecute by relying on the mercy of the 
 Government ; and by a confidence, founded on 
 experience, that the administration of justice will 
 be much less cruel than the law; but in the 
 case of Bankrupts, it is well known that no 
 mercy is to be expected. It is supposed to be 
 for the interest of the community that this most 
 severe statute should be rigorously enforced. In 
 the few instances that have occurred of con- 
 victions upon this law, the sentence has always, 
 I believe, been executed, with one single excep- 
 tion. This excepted case was that of a man of 
 the name of Bullock. The circumstances under 
 which his life was spared, were, that after his con- 
 viction, it was made perfectly evident, in a peti- 
 tion on his bankruptcy which came before the pre- 
 sent Lord Chancellor, that the commission against 
 him was of no validity. The facts which put this 
 beyond all doubt had not been proved upon the 
 trial. By the evidence given on that occasion, the 
 conviction was well warranted; but, according to 
 the real circumstances of the case, the Bankrupt 
 ught never to have been convicted. And yet
 
 BANKRUPT LAWS. 431 
 
 even this exercise of mercy, indispensable as it 
 seems to have been, gave to some persons great 
 dissatisfaction ; and though the man was pardon- 
 ed, it was only on condition of his being trans- 
 ported, and (if I mistake not) for life. He was, 
 I believe, a dishonest man; but the commission 
 against him not being valid, he had done no act 
 which by law was punishable, either with death, 
 or with transportation; and I mention this case 
 only to show with what rigour crimes against the 
 Bankrupt Laws have been treated by the execu- 
 tive government. 
 
 " With such rigour, indeed, is Government 
 disposed to treat them, that upon some very 
 important occasions it has ranked them with 
 murder and forgery. Thus, in the treaty of 
 Amiens, it is stipulated that certain offenders who 
 fly from justice, shall be reciprocally given up to 
 their respective governments; a stipulation, by the 
 bye, which it was felt that the Crown had not the 
 power to make without the sanction of Parlia- 
 ment; and a statute was therefore passed to con- 
 firm and give effect to the treaty, the 42 Geo. III. 
 cap. 92, sec. 21. The offenders to whom an asy- 
 lum was thus formally, and by a solemn national 
 act refused, were only of three descriptions, 
 murderers, persons guilty of forgery, and fraudu- 
 lent bankrupts. 
 
 " The nation, however, has been so far from 
 adopting this severe disposition of its govern- 
 ment, that it scarcely ever happens that per-
 
 432 BANKRUPT LAWS. 
 
 sons can be found who will institute prosecutions 
 for felonies under the Bankrupt laws. Very nume- 
 rous instances might, I believe, according to in- 
 formation which I have received from various 
 quarters, belaid before the Committee, of credi- 
 tors who have deliberately resolved to allow Bank- 
 rupts by whom they had been grossly defrauded, 
 to enjoy complete impunity, because they saw no 
 other alternative than such impunity, or the cer- 
 tainty of shedding their blood. 
 
 " That men should feel great repugnance to 
 put a human creature to death for such an offence, 
 cannot surprise those who have reflected what the 
 nature of the crime really is. Whatever the lan- 
 guage of the law may be, or whatever national ex- 
 pediency may be thought to require, the great mass 
 of mankind never can be brought to regard as 
 highly criminal that which is not to a great degree 
 immoral ; and when it is considered, that by our 
 law, a Bankrupt is made such against his will, it is 
 evident that the only immorality of one who has 
 secreted none of his property, but who does not 
 surrender to his commission, is, that he withholds 
 from his creditors the information and assistance 
 which he ought to afford them, to enable them to 
 recover his effects, and to apply them in satisfaction 
 of their demands ; and even this immorality may 
 find some extenuation in the disgrace to which he 
 must be subjected, and in the danger to which he 
 is exposed; since, however honestly he may have 
 acted, and (hough every thing he has in the world
 
 BANKRUPT LAWS. 433 
 
 be given up to his creditors, yet if he do not ob- 
 tain his certificate, he may be imprisoned for life, 
 by any one creditor who will prefer the gratifica- 
 tion of his resentment to the benefit he might de- 
 rive from the commission. A man that has not 
 fortitude enough to encounter iso much shame, 
 and such a risk, maybe culpable; but who can, 
 upon calm reflection, say that he ought to be pu- 
 nished with death ? 
 
 " The crime of withholding property from 
 the creditors is indeed much more immoral; but 
 even this, in the case of one who has been made a 
 Bankrupt without his own concurrence, amounts 
 in reality to nothing more than the not paying (to 
 the extent of the property withheld) debts which 
 it is in his power to pay. That this is criminal 
 cannot be denied; but that it should be expiated 
 by the blood of the offender confounds all notions 
 of justice, and destroys all gradations of guilt. 
 It is very dishonest, but it is not more dishonest in 
 an obscure tradesman, than in the heir of a title ; 
 and yet for this dishonesty, while our law hangs 
 the one it suffers the other to enjoy complete im- 
 punity; nay, it not only leaves him unpunished, 
 but it suffers him, in defiance of his creditors, to 
 enjoy, and to squander in gaol the substance 
 which ought to be applied to the payment of his 
 debts; for the.re is no process by which, in the 
 case of persons not subject to the Bankrupt Laws, 
 copyhold estates, property in the public funds, or 
 TOL. ii. p F
 
 BANKRUPT LAWS. 
 
 money lent upon security, can be taken by credi- 
 tors in execution. 
 
 " The statute of 5 Geo. II. which first made 
 the offences of not surrendering under a com- 
 mission, and of withholding- property by Bank- 
 rupts, capital, was originally a mere temporary 
 law; it was passed only as an experiment; and 
 though a most unsuccessful one, it has been con- 
 tinued from time to time till the year 1797, when 
 it was made perpetual. The cruelty of this statute 
 has, I am fully convinced, wholly prevented its 
 efficacy; and I entertain no doubt that if it were 
 repealed, and the offences for which it denounces 
 death were declared to be misdemeanors, and 
 were merely punished with imprisonment, the 
 number of such crimes would soon be very sensibly 
 diminished. 
 
 " There is, however, an offence often com- 
 mitted under the Bankrupt Laws which appears 
 to me far more serious than that of not sur- 
 rendering 1 to a commission, or that of conceal- 
 ing property from the creditors, but for which 
 the law has appointed a much slighter punish- 
 ment ; I mean that of a trader procuring a com- 
 mission to be taken out against him, in order, by 
 means of false and fictitious debts proved under 
 it, to obtain a certificate, which shall operate as a 
 release of all his real debts. This is an offence 
 which has of late years become extremely com- 
 mon, and in the perpetration of which there is
 
 BANKRUPT LAWS. 433 
 
 great reason to believe that the same persons have 
 been repeatedly employed as instruments under 
 different commissions. The crimes which the law 
 has made capital are merely crimes of omission, 
 and consist in not submitting to very harsh coercive 
 proceedings : but this crime is the spontaneous and 
 premeditated act of the debtor; it is a gross fraud, 
 practised generally on a great number of indivi- 
 duals, and to a very great amount, and which can 
 be perpetrated only by means of repeated, nume- 
 rous, and flagrant perjuries. The only prosecu- 
 tion which can now be instituted against these, 
 the greatest offenders in Bankruptcy, is for a con- 
 spiracy, or for subornation of perjury; and the 
 only punishment that can be inflicted on them, if 
 tried for the first of these crimes, is fine and im- 
 prisonment; and if for the last of them, the pil- 
 lory, in addition to those other penalties. A se- 
 verer punishment ought surely to be appointed for 
 this crime, such as transportation, or imprison- 
 ment and hard labour in a house of correction ; 
 for, even in this case the punishment of death 
 would, as it appears to me, be neither expedient 
 nor justifiable. 
 
 " Another part of the law relating to Bank- 
 rupts, which is highly penal in its consequences, 
 and which very urgently requires alteration, is 
 that which gives power to the commissioners to 
 commit a Bankrupt to prison, if he do not an- 
 swer to their satisfaction the questions they put 
 
 FF 2
 
 436 BANKRUPT LAWS. 
 
 to him respecting his property, and to keep him 
 in custody till he does. It was formerly held, 
 that if the Bankrupt gave plain and direct an- 
 swers to the questions, even though the com- 
 missioners believed them to he false, they had no 
 power to commit; and the only remedy was a pro- 
 secution for perjury: but it is now understood, 
 that if the commissioners discredit the answers 
 given them, they may imprison the Bankrupt till 
 he shall answer to their satisfaction. Such a 
 power ought not, under any system of laws, to be 
 intrusted to any description of persons, who, 
 however wise and discreet, yet being men, must 
 be subject to error. The answers given by the 
 Bankrupt may be true, though they do not appear 
 such to the commissioners. Trutli has not always 
 the semblance of truth; and no man can have had 
 much experience of judicial proceedings without 
 having sometimes seen that facts, which at the 
 first statement of them appeared in the highest 
 degree improbable, have nevertheless in the end 
 been fully and satisfactorily established. If ever 
 this should have occurred in Bankruptcy, and the 
 first impression have been acted on, if ever a 
 Bankrupt should be committed, because the com- 
 missioners refuse credit to his assertion, although 
 that assertion be strictly true (and no person can 
 doubt that this may sometimes happen), an inno- 
 cent man must be punished with perpetual impri- 
 sonment, only because his judges are difficult of
 
 BANKRUPT LAW*. 
 
 belief. It is perseverance in truth, which in such 
 a case must make the imprisonment perpetual ; 
 the only chance of deliverance is to fabricate 
 some falsehood; and to maintain it with such con- 
 fidence and consistency that it shall gain credit 
 with those by whom the truth was disbelieved. 
 
 " Next in importance to those parts of the 
 Bankrupt Law which I have already observed upon, 
 is that which relates to Certificates. Upon this 
 subject it should seem, from much of what appears 
 in the evidence reported by the Committee in the 
 last Session, that very erroneous notions are en- 
 tertained : it may therefore be expedient a little to 
 enlarge upon it. 
 
 " The principle upon which the Bankrupt Law, 
 as established in the 5th year of the reign of Geo. 
 II. proceeds, is, that every Bankrupt, whether 
 he has become such by misfortunes, by impru- 
 dence, or even by culpable conduct, shall, if he 
 give up all the property that he possesses to his 
 creditors, and conform himself to the provisions 
 of the statute, by making a full disclosure of 
 every thing material for their information, be pro- 
 tected from every process to which his creditors 
 might otherwise resort against his person or 
 against property acquired by him subsequently to 
 his bankruptcy; accordingly, what is requisite to 
 entitle him to this protection, is a certificate, not 
 that his failure was the effect of misfortune, 
 
 FF 3
 
 438 BANKRUPT LAWS. 
 
 or that his former conduct was blameless, but 
 merely, that, after the commission issued, he had 
 done every thing which the law required of him, 
 to give full effect to it. This being the object and 
 nature of the certificate, it seems not a little ex- 
 traordinary, that amongst the persons whose con- 
 sent is necessary to its allowance, should be a 
 certain proportion of the creditors, and that it 
 should be left to their uncontrolled discretion to 
 give or to refuse such consent. If they were to 
 be considered merely as witnesses, who having a 
 full knowledge of what had been done under 
 the commission, and an interest narrowly to watch 
 the proceedings, were best qualified to testify what 
 the Bankrupt's conduct under it had been, one 
 could well understand why their signatures should 
 be required. But then equal justice would seem to 
 demand, that the Bankrupt should have a right 
 to insist on their making some declaration on the 
 subject; and that if they could not conscientiously 
 certify that he had not conformed to the statutes, 
 their silence should be considered as a tacit admis- 
 sion that he had done every thing which the law 
 required of him. 
 
 " It is not however in this light (whatever may 
 have been the intention of the Legislature), that 
 the matter is now considered, either by the cre- 
 ditors, or by any persons concerned in the ad- 
 ministration of this part of the law. The Lord 
 Chancellor and the Commissioners, whose assent
 
 BANKRUPT JLAWS. 439 
 
 is necessary to the allowance of the certificate, 
 as well as that of the Creditors, are bound to 
 lay entirely out of their consideration the an- 
 terior conduct of the Bankrupt. If he has ap- 
 peared to his commission, has given up all his 
 property, and upon his examination has made a 
 candid and ingenuous disclosure of his affairs, they 
 are bound to allow his certificate, though that 
 very disclosure should amount to an admission, 
 that before his bankruptcy he had deceived all 
 who dealt with him, and had practised on his cre- 
 ditors every species of fraud and imposition. The 
 creditors, however, are bound by no such rules. 
 They are at liberty to advert to the whole of the 
 past life of the Bankrupt, and as it were to sit in 
 judgment upon the transactions which have taken 
 place with themselves : to be judges in their own 
 cause, and to inflict punishment at their pleasure 
 for whatever they may consider as an offence 
 against themselves or against the public. This 
 has, I confess, always appeared to me to be an 
 extremely defective system. I have always 
 thought that keeping a Bankrupt without his 
 certificate was an unfit punishment for past 
 offences, and that creditors were not the judges 
 who could be best intrusted with the power of 
 punishing their debtors. The effect of withhold- 
 ing a Bankrupt's certificate, is to leave him ex- 
 posed to all the severe process which the law of 
 
 F F 4
 
 440 BANKRUPT LAWS. 
 
 England affords to creditors against those who will 
 not pay their debts ; while the same law, by strip- 
 ping the Bankrupt of the whole of his property, 
 makes it impossible that he should pay them. It 
 takes from him, too, all motives for industry, by 
 subjecting the future fruits of his labours to the 
 demands of his former creditors. One single cre- 
 ditor who refuses to come in under the commis- 
 sion, may throw the Bankrupt into prison, and 
 detain him there for life, except as far as under the 
 present temporary insolvent debtors' Act he may, 
 as long as it shall continue in force, obtain at the 
 end of five years of imprisonment the relief of a 
 kind of second bankruptcy. 
 
 " Before the passing of the Act of 49 Geo. III. 
 the injustice was still greater : for it was permit- 
 ted to a creditor who did not choose to take the 
 benefit of a commission, to come in and prove his 
 debt under it, for the mere purpose of being 
 counted in the number of those whose signature 
 to the certificate was required ; and of rendering, 
 by his refusal to sign it, the other signatures 
 unavailing. How that practice ever came to be 
 permitted it is difficult to understand, for there 
 is nothing in the statute of Geo. II. which 
 could sanction it, though it appears to have pre- 
 vailed, if not from the passing of that Act, yet at 
 least from the time of Lord Hardwicke. This 
 gross injustice is prevented by the late Act; and
 
 BANKRUPT LAWS. 441 
 
 no creditor is now permitted to proceed by law 
 against the Bankrupt, and at the same time to 
 take advantage, for any purpose, of the commis- 
 sion. 
 
 " The evils which may befall a Bankrupt who 
 cannot obtain his certificate, though they are very 
 severe, and in some cases extremely cruel, are yet 
 not of such a kind as ought to be inflicted by way 
 of punishment. If a trader has committed frauds 
 before his bankruptcy, he should suffer' the penalty 
 which the law has appointed for them ; or if they 
 be such as no law has yet provided against, an Act 
 should be passed to declare them criminal, and to 
 fix the proper punishment for them. The lot of 
 evil which he is to suffer for his misdeeds should 
 be pronounced in a judicial sentence; the crime 
 should be defined, the punishment should be 
 certain, and , public, that his sufferings might 
 operate by way of example and of prevention, 
 and might be made useful to the community. 
 His miseries ought not, as they now are, to be de- 
 pendent upon the accident of some one creditor 
 choosing to proceed against his person, while 
 others refuse to sign his certificate; they ought to 
 be inflicted speedily, and not deferred perhaps for 
 years, till all his misconduct has been forgotten, 
 and his mifortunes only are remembered; they 
 ought not to be prolonged throughout his life; and 
 to be endured in silence and in secrecy, and with- 
 out any declaration of the nature and the circum-
 
 442 BANKRUPT LAWS. 
 
 stances of his offence. A man who is undergoing 
 the penalty of his crimes ought not to be placed in 
 the doubtful state in which an uncertificated 
 Bankrupt is placed, leaving it uncertain, to all 
 who hear of his condition, whether his sufferings 
 are the effect of his own guilt or of the capricious 
 cruelty of some unrelenting creditor. 
 
 " If, however, the law relating to certificates 
 were not, as a penal law, liable to all these 
 objections, yet upon what principle can it be 
 justified, that the administration of this law, in 
 which the public has so deep an interest, should 
 be confided to creditors, not responsible to any 
 one for their conduct, but left at full liberty 
 to act as their passions or their interests may 
 prompt? No man, much experienced in Bank- 
 rupt Law, who recollects to what persons cer- 
 tificates have been granted, and to whom they 
 have been refused, will pretend that the discre- 
 tion thus intrusted to creditors has been generally 
 exercised upon motives which would bear the 
 test of any moral investigation. I have heard 
 it, indeed, asserted, that creditors abound with 
 kindness and humanity, and never refuse certifi- 
 cates, but to those who are undeserving of them. 
 I cannot say that my experience confirms that ob- 
 servation ; on the contrary, I have known several 
 instances of the most harsh and inhuman refusals 
 of certificates by creditors. One such case exists 
 at the present moment. It is that of a very ho-
 
 BANKRUPT LAWS. 443 
 
 nest and most unfortunate gentleman, a Bankrupt 
 through no fault of his own, but who has been 
 involved in ruin by the villany of a partner, and 
 who yet, without the pretence of any imputation, 
 on his conduct, remains without his certificate 
 merely because it is the pleasure of a creditor of 
 large amount that it shall be withheld. 
 
 " It could not but occur to those who framed 
 the statute of 5 Geo. II. that a creditor smart- 
 ing under a pecuniary loss, and invested with 
 the power of inflicting such an injury, or of 
 conferring so valuable a boon, on his debtor, as 
 the withholding or granting his certificate, would 
 be likely enough, unless restrained by law, to 
 make a traffic of his authority, and to accept 
 a bribe for the exercise of his judicial discretion. 
 They have accordingly strictly forbidden credi- 
 tors to receive, either from the Bankrupt or 
 from any other person, any consideration what- 
 ever for signing a certificate ; and have declared 
 a certificate signed for any such consideration 
 void. But in spite of the prohibition of this law, 
 no man conversant with the subject can doubt, 
 that in very many instances, money, or other va- 
 luable considerations, are still taken for signing 
 certificates. It frequently happens, too, that in 
 order to recover some part of the property which 
 is to be divided among the creditors, or to resist 
 some demand set up against the estate, it becomes 
 necessary to examine the Bankrupt as a witness ;
 
 444 BANKRUPT LAWS. 
 
 but he can be rendered a competent witness only 
 by granting him his certificate. In all such cases 
 the creditors, without any regard to the past 
 transactions of the Bankrupt, or to his conduct 
 under the commission, but with a view only to the 
 dividends they are to receive, affix their signatures. 
 Nothing surely can be more destructive of the 
 only just end of punishment, than such examples 
 as these ; and if punishment be not the object of 
 those hardships and severities to which an uncer- 
 tificated Bankrupt is exposed, they are very wan- 
 tonly and cruelly inflicted on him. 
 
 " Upon the subject however of certificates, 
 it should be observed that the two effects which 
 by our law follow their being granted or refused, 
 admit of very different considerations. Whether 
 a man whose debts remain unpaid, no matter 
 from what cause, should be allowed to make 
 what use he pleases of after-acquired property, 
 and to keep it entirely privileged from the claims 
 of his former unsatisfied creditors, admits of a 
 very different consideration from the question, 
 whether he ought to be exposed in his person to 
 a severe and cruel restraint for not paying debts 
 which the law has made it impossible for him 
 to pay. Between these different consequences, 
 however, of a Bankrupt's certificate being with- 
 held, the law as now existing makes no dis- 
 tinction; and a creditor cannot, by signing a 
 certificate, afford a Bankrupt a shield against
 
 BANKRUPT LAWS. 445 
 
 oppression, without resigning- all claim to receive 
 satisfaction for his debt out of the Bankrupt's fu- 
 ture opulence. It should be observed too, that 
 it may be both impolitic and unjust to prevent a 
 Bankrupt from enjoying in security the fruits of 
 his future industry ; and yet be quite consistent 
 with justice and expediency, that accessions of 
 fortune which are not obtained by his own exer- 
 tions, should have no such protection. Hence, a 
 distinction might reasonably be made between the 
 future earnings of a Bankrupt, and the property he 
 may derive from gift or from inheritance; or if it- 
 should, be thought just to preserve the law which 
 subjects even the produce of the subsequent la- 
 bour or ingenuity of an uncertificated Bankrupt 
 to the payment of his antecedent debts, yet it 
 might be expedient, in order to prevent the bad 
 effects of so fatal a restraint upon industry, to 
 make some distinction with respect to the amount 
 of such acquisitions ; and to let what should re- 
 main only, after a reasonable provision for the 
 Bankrupt and his family, be considered as a fund 
 for the liquidation of his unsatisfied debts. 
 
 " If it be right that the creditors should have 
 the power of deciding whether a Bankrupt shall 
 have his certificate, I see no reason to object 
 to the old law, which required that the number 
 of assenting creditors should be four fifths of 
 the whole : and though the Act of the 49 Gco. 
 III. which requires the assent only of three Jifths, 
 
 4
 
 446 BANKRUPT LAWS. 
 
 is generally called my Act, because I was the 
 original mover of it in the House of Commons; 
 yet that alteration was never . suggested by me, 
 nor was I ever consulted upon it. As the Bill 
 was brought into and passed the House of Com- 
 mons, it gave the Bankrupt a right of appeal- 
 ing to the Lord Chancellor, from the decision 
 of his creditors, if they refused him his certi- 
 ficate, as had been done in Ireland in certain 
 cases, by several Acts of the Irish Parliament, 
 particularly the 21 and 22 Geo. III. cap. 59 ; the 
 25 Geo. III. cap. 25 ; the 37 Geo. III. cap. 25 ; 
 the 39 Geo. III. cap. 25; and the 39 Geo. III. 
 cap. 57. This clause was struck out in the House 
 of Lords, and the alteration as to the proportion 
 of creditors required to sign the certificate, was 
 substituted in its place. A number of clauses 
 were in the same manner added to the Bill by the 
 Lords, from the 15th section to the end of it, for 
 which I certainly can claim no praise, and deserve 
 no blame. Though known to be the author of 
 the Bill, I received no intimation whatever that 
 any such additions or alterations were intended; 
 and as the Bill, according to a practice which is 
 extremely common with respect to Bills coming up 
 from the Commons, and purporting to make im- 
 portant alterations in the law, was put off by the 
 Lords to the last days of the Sessions, it did not 
 come down to the Commons in its altered state
 
 BANKRUPT LAWS. 447 
 
 till the day before Parliament was prorogued ; and 
 consequently all opportunity of considering the 
 propriety of the Lords' alterations was denied to 
 the Commons. 
 
 " The defects in the Bankrupt Laws which 
 I have already mentioned, those which are found 
 in them when considered as penal laws, and 
 those which relate to certificates, I consider as 
 being- by far the most important. There are, how- 
 ever, as it appears to me, other evils resulting 
 from those laws, which ought not to be overlook- 
 ed; such as the extensive and numerous litiga- 
 tions which attend them, the very great expense 
 of commissions, and their inadequacy to relieve a 
 Bankrupt from all his engagements. The validity 
 of a commission may, after the party has been 
 found a Bankrupt under it, be contested in a va- 
 riety of ways. It may be disputed by the Bank- 
 rupt himself, by any of his creditors, and by any 
 of the persons who are indebted to the estate. 
 It may be disputed in petitions to the Chancellor, 
 in actions brought against the assignees, or against 
 the messenger, and in the defence which may be 
 made to actions brought by the assignees. The 
 expense which attends these litigations is enor- 
 mous ; and property which, at the time of sealing 
 the commission, would have afforded a large divi- 
 dend to the creditors, is by such proceedings often 
 very greatly diminished, and sometimes wholly 
 consumed.
 
 448 BANKRUPT LAWS. 
 
 " It was the object of the statutes of 46 Geo. 
 III. and 49 Geo. III. to diminish this evil, by 
 making it impossible to overturn commissions 
 by reason of prior secret acts of bankruptcy, and 
 by dispensing with the necessity of proving all 
 the requisites to support a commission in any ac- 
 tion by the assignees, unless the party against 
 whom it was brought meant really to try the va- 
 lidity of the commission, and would, at the risk 
 of costs, give notice of such his intentions ; and 
 those Acts have certainly prevented some litiga- 
 tion, and saved some expense. But a more effectual 
 remedy should be applied, and perhaps the most 
 effectual would be that suggested by Mr. Stevens, 
 in his evidence given before the Committee in the 
 last Session, namely, to make the adjudication by 
 the commissioner, when acquiesced in by the Bank- 
 rupt for a certain period, final in all cases, except 
 those of commissions fraudulently taken out at 
 the instance of the Bankrupt himself. It is im- 
 portant that something of this kind should be pro- 
 vided, not only for avoiding the litigation and 
 expense which belong to these proceedings, but to 
 protect assignees from the vexation and ruin which 
 may be brought on them, notwithstanding their 
 conduct may have been the most honourable, and 
 the best calculated to promote the interests of the 
 creditors, if it happens that the commission under 
 which they have acted proves to be invalid. A 
 commission of Bankrupt, and a certificate of the
 
 BANKRUPT LAWS. 449 
 
 Bankrupt having conformed under it to the sta- 
 tute, will not, as the law now stands, protect 
 him from being answerable for all his former 
 pecuniary engagements : and this appears to be 
 a very great imperfection in it. All the pro- 
 visions of the law, as well those of a criminal as 
 of a civil nature, seem to proceed upon the prin- 
 ciple of the Bankrupt being completely discharged 
 from all such engagements. Upon no other ground 
 can it be just to take away all his property and 
 distribute it amongst his creditors, or to subject 
 him to severe punishment, if he do not make a full 
 disclosure of it. It is surely the grossest injustice 
 to take from a man all the means of paying his 
 debts, and yet to leave him answerable for those 
 debts, and to punish him by imprisonment if he 
 do not discharge them. 
 
 " To remove this evil, in some degree, was 
 the object of the statute of 49 Geo. III. and 
 it has accordingly allowed the proof of different 
 debts under the commission, which before were 
 not provable, and consequently made the Bank- 
 rupt's certificate a discharge for them. That 
 statute, however, has not gone so far as it 
 ought to have done; but, that more was not at- 
 tempted by it, will not surprise those who know 
 what difficulties a private individual, who presumes 
 to propose amendments of the law, has to en- 
 counter. All contingent debts ought, upon a 
 proper estimate being made of their value, to be 
 
 VOL. II. G G
 
 4. "30 BANKRUPT LAWS. 
 
 admitted to be proved, since nothing is left in the 
 hands of the Bankrupt to answer such demands 
 when the contingency may happen. As the law 
 now stands, contingent debts cannot be proved, 
 though all a Bankrupt's property, even that in 
 which he has only a contingent interest, is devis- 
 able amongst his creditors, who come in under the 
 commission. It should seem too, that all debts, 
 which at the time of the bankruptcy remain in un- 
 liquidated damages, and which are now excluded, 
 ought to be admitted to be proved ; the amount of 
 such damages being previously ascertained before 
 the commissioners, or in such other mode as may 
 be thought expedient. Where such a demand is 
 constituted by contract, this probably would not 
 be much objected to ; but there is certainly much 
 difficulty when the demand arises out of some 
 personal wrong. That species of debt has, by 
 many of the Acts of Parliament for the relief of 
 insolvent debtors, been treated as being of a 
 penal nature, and has therefore been excepted 
 from their provisions. This principle has never 
 been adopted in the Bankrupt Law ; and it is only 
 when the amount of the damages has been previ- 
 ously ascertained, that it is excluded in common 
 with all other demands of an unliquidated amount, 
 from the benefit of the commission. If a verdict 
 has been previously recovered, the debt is prov- 
 able, and is discharged by the certificate, like 
 any other demand. The justice, too, of the
 
 BANKRUPT LAWS. 451 
 
 principle on which the insolvent debtors' Acts pro- 
 ceed, is extremely questionable. For many personal 
 wrongs, the injured party has his choice to proceed 
 either by indictment to exact punishment, or by 
 action to recover a pecuniary compensation; and 
 it would seem not a little extraordinary, if, by 
 adopting the latter mode of proceeding, he could, 
 for such offences as a private libel or a trifling as- 
 sault, inflict perpetual imprisonment; a severer 
 punishment than the law allows, even in cases of 
 the most aggravated misdemeanors. . There are 
 other personal wrongs, indeed, for which by law 
 no punishment can be inflicted, such as adultery 
 and the seduction of a daughter; the defect of the 
 law, however, in this respect, ought not to be sup- 
 plied by such indirect means, and punishment in 
 such cases should not be left to depend upon the 
 indifferent and accidental circumstances which are 
 to determine whether debts arising out of such 
 transactions are or are not barred by a certificate. 
 " Another description of debts from which a 
 Bankrupt is not released by a commission, and 
 by his certificate, are those which are due to the 
 Crown. It does not appear to me that any just 
 reason can be assigned for distinguishing such 
 debts in this respect, from debts due to a subject ; 
 at any rate, it should be provided, that no extent 
 at the suit of the Crown should be effectual after 
 the debtor had by the commissioners been declar- 
 ed a Bankrupt, in order to save the expense of a 
 
 G G 2
 
 432 BANKRUPT LAWS, 
 
 provisional assignment, which is of no other use 
 than to protect the Bankrupt's property from ex- 
 tents. Some provision too is wanting- to compel 
 a Bankrupt, who is seised of real property in the 
 Colonies, or in a foreign Country, which, by the 
 municipal law of the place where it is situated, 
 will not be affected by his commission, to convey 
 it to his assignees for the benefit of his creditors. 
 
 " Another part of the Bankrupt Law which has- 
 long appeared to me to require alteration, and 
 which I have known in many instances productive 
 of extraordinary injustice and oppression, is the 
 facility with which commission* can be taken- out.' 
 If a trader is indebted to* any man in 10G/. or, if 
 any person will swear that he is indebted to him 
 in that amount, the real or pretended creditor, 
 on getting a witness to swear that an act of 
 bankruptcy has been committed, may, without 
 the least previous intimation, and by a mere ex- 
 parte proceeding, make the trader a Bankrupt. 
 The immediate consequence is, that all his pro- 
 perty is taken possession of; his trade is put a 
 stop to, and he is compelled to surrender to the 
 commission, and to submit to be examined as to 
 all his concerns; and all this, though he might be 
 able, if an opportunity were afforded him, to 
 prove that he had never committed any act of 
 bankruptcy, and that he does not owe the man 
 who is prosecuting the commission a single shil- 
 ling. This proof he can only be allowed to give
 
 BANKRUPT LAWS. 453 
 
 upon a petition to the Lord Chancellor to super- 
 sede the commission, or in an action which he 
 may bring against the messenger, or the assignee, 
 to recover his property. Several months must 
 elapse; several years may, and sometimes do, 
 elapse before he can have such a petition or such 
 an action finally decided. In the mean time, not 
 only is all his property withheld from him, but it 
 is in the hands of the person with whom he is 
 contending, and affords the means of protracting 
 the litigation, and of supporting his oppressor in 
 his injustice. The Bankrupt is without any re- 
 sources but such as his friends may from charity 
 advance him, while his opponent is, with the 
 Bankrupt's property, resisting his just demands. 
 I have known several instances of this kind: 
 commissions taken out without any colour of jus- 
 tification, either in respect of the insolvent cir- 
 cumstances of the supposed debtor, or of there 
 having been any act of bankruptcy committed; 
 and I have known that such commissions have in 
 the end been superseded, and the persons who 
 took them out have been ordered to pay all the 
 costs of the proceeding : but I never knew an in- 
 stance of this kind in which the person against 
 whom the commission had been taken out, was 
 not, notwithstanding his ultimate success, com- 
 pletely and irretrievably ruined. Such proceed- 
 ings as these sometimes originate in malice; some- 
 times in indifference .to consequences which will 
 G G ,'}
 
 454 BANKKUPT LAWS. 
 
 only affect a man's debtor; and sometimes, and 
 indeed most frequently, in a desire to create law 
 expenses, by which an attorney, who is either 
 himself the petitioning creditor, or who has sug- 
 gested the measure, is largely to profit. This, in 
 my opinion, most urgently calls for some remedy, 
 though I am not prepared at the present moment 
 to say what that remedy should be. 
 
 " It seems to have been the opinion of several 
 Gentlemen who were examined before the Commit- 
 tee of last Session, that it would be a great im- 
 provement in the administration of the Bankrupt 
 Laws, if there were fixed and permanent lists of 
 commissioners in the country, to whom all com- 
 missions must be directed, as is the case in Lon- 
 don, instead of leaving it to the person who takes 
 out the commission to have it directed to what 
 commissioners he pleases ; provided only that two 
 of them be barristers. ' I am not myself, by any 
 means, satisfied that this is desirable. It is true, 
 that the duty of commissioners would probably, 
 under such a system, be somewhat better dis- 
 charged than it is at present; but I doubt whether 
 the good that would result from this, would suffi-* 
 ciently compensate for the mischief of extending the 
 patronage and influence of the Crown over the pro- 
 fession in every part of the kingdom, by placing 
 such a number of new offices in the gift of the 
 Chancellor. It has always appeared to me to be 
 of great importance to the public, to preserve as
 
 BANKRUPT LAWS. 455 
 
 much as possible the independence of lawyers; 
 and I know of no more effectual mode of destroy- 
 ing that independence, than by accustoming them 
 to be looking up to the favour of the Chancellor, 
 for an appointment, not only lucrative in itself, but 
 which is a recommendation and an introduction 
 to business. Lord Rosslyn, when Chancellor, took 
 upon himself to have such lists made out in seve- 
 ral of the principal trading towns in Ba^land ; 
 but this had not been done by any of his prede- 
 cessors; and the present Lord Chancellor has re- 
 jected this patronage, and has always expressed 
 his disapprobation of what he has been pleased to 
 say, he considered as an exercise of favour, which 
 was unfair towards those whom it excluded ; and 
 though he has continued the directing of commis- 
 sions at Birmingham, and some other places, to 
 the lists which he found appointed when the great 
 seal was committed to him, he has not, in a single 
 instance, added to those lists, or even filled up 
 the vacancies in them, which have been caused by 
 death. With respect to these country commis- 
 sioners, some alteration should be made in the 
 amount of their fees. They are now allowed, like 
 town commissioners, only twenty shillings for 
 each meeting they attend ; and so imperative is 
 the statute, that it declares, that any commis- 
 sioner who shall take a larger fee shall be dis- 
 abled for ever from acting as a commissioner 
 ia any commission. This positive injunction is 
 
 c G 4
 
 456 BANKRUPT LAWS. 
 
 however every day disregarded ; the fee which 
 is allowed being a very inadequate compensation, 
 where a barrister (as is often the case) has 
 to travel a considerable distance to the place ap- 
 pointed for the meeting, in addition to the long 
 attendance which may be required of him. 
 
 " The evils which I have noticed appear to me 
 to be those which require most to be corrected in 
 the Bankrupt Laws. There are other matters, how- 
 ever, which deserve attention in any attempt that 
 may be made to improve those laws. These have 
 been well pointed out by several of the Gentlemen 
 who gave evidence before the former Committee. 
 The expense attending the execution of commis- 
 sions seems of late to have considerably increased ; 
 their meetings to be greatly multiplied; and the 
 custom of having counsel to attend them to have 
 become extremely common: for the inconveniences 
 which all this may occasion, it is certainly not 
 very easy to provide a remedy. In one instance, 
 however, which it may be worth mentioning, 
 meetings of commissioners are often had which 
 seem to me wholly unnecessary ; I mean the meet- 
 ings which are called to authorize the assignees 
 in laying out the money in their hands in the 
 purchase of Exchequer bills. Notwithstanding 
 the seventh section of the Act of 49 Geo. III. 
 which was most inconsiderately added to the Bill 
 after it had been brought into the House of Com- 
 mons, no such meetings can be necessary. The
 
 BANKRUPT LAWS. 457 
 
 laying out money in Exchequer bills for the be- 
 nefit of the creditors, and depositing them in the 
 hands of the bankers appointed under the com- 
 mission, could not possibly subject the assignees to 
 any penalties ; and the sanction of the commis- 
 sioners to such a measure must be quite super- 
 fluous. 
 
 " The necessity of expensive applications to 
 the Chancellor might, in many cases, be avoided 
 by extending the powers of the commissioners; 
 by enabling them to keep separate accounts of the 
 joint and separate estates of Bankrupts, and to 
 admit the proof of joint debts under separate 
 commissions; by allowing them to take cogni- 
 zance of equitable as well as of legal mortgages; 
 by authorizing them to expunge the proof of 
 debts admitted by them, upon the production of 
 evidence not known when the proof was admitted ; 
 and by empowering them to compel the attendance 
 of witnesses and the production of documents 
 necessary for their proceedings."
 
 458 
 
 BRISTOL ELECTION. 
 
 THE following speech was delivered by Sir Sa- 
 muel Romilly on the 2d of April 1812, upon his 
 health being drank at a public dinner in Bristol, 
 to which he had been invited by a numerous and 
 respectable body of electors of that city. 
 
 " GENTLEMEN, 
 
 " I return you my sincere and 
 warmest thanks for the honour you have done me. 
 These, however, are terms which but faintly ex- 
 press the sentiments which I feel upon this occa- 
 sion. Indeed no expressions that I can use, and 
 I fear no actions that I can perform, would make 
 an adequate return for the exertions you have 
 made and are making in my favour. It is only 
 in the consciousness of the disinterested and pa- 
 triotic motives by which you are actuated that 
 you can find that return. When it was first inti- 
 mated to me that my conduct in Parliament had 
 attracted the notice of many of you, and had 
 produced a desire that I should be put in nomina- 
 tion to be one of your representatives, I wn 
 that I received the information with surprise, but 
 yet with the most heartfelt delight. Though I 
 have never made public favours the object of my 
 pursuit, yet I have always thought, that, next to
 
 BRISTOL ELECTION. 459 
 
 the satisfaction which every man feels from the 
 consciousness of having endeavoured well and 
 faithfully to discharge important duties, the best 
 reward, in this life, is the approbation and ap- 
 plause of a generous and enlightened people. 
 
 " I rejoiced at it too from other and higher 
 considerations than those which are personal to 
 myself. I rejoiced to find that the sentiments, 
 and opinions, and principles, which I had enter- 
 tained, and on which I had acted, on subjects of 
 the deepest interest to the Country, were probably 
 the principles and sentiments of a large portion of 
 the inhabitants of Bristol, and consequently, I 
 believed, of a large portion of my countrymen in 
 every part of the kingdom. I looked forward 
 with exultation to the time when, in resisting 
 measures which might appear to me to be the 
 fruits of pernicious counsels, or in supporting or 
 proposing those which I might think conducive to 
 the best interests of the Country, I should speak, 
 not as a humble and unsupported individual, but 
 with the weight and authority and commanding 
 influence of this great and populous city. 
 
 " I hailed it too as a most fortunate and au- 
 spicious circumstance, that preparatory to a ge- 
 neral election about to take place at a crisis as 
 important as any that is to be found in our history 
 since the Revolution, an example was likely to be 
 set by the city of Bristol, of looking for a repre- 
 sentative towards men who could have no recom-
 
 460 BRISTOL ELECTION. 
 
 inendation but their public conduct, and in over- 
 looking all personal favour and private attachment, 
 when in competition with the interest of the nation. 
 I could not doubt that such an example, set by a 
 city which must have such influence on public 
 opinion, would awaken other places of popular 
 election to a sense of the importance of con- 
 scientiously exercising their elective rights in the 
 return of a Parliament, upon whose wise and 
 honest, or rash and corrupt councils, will depend 
 every thing that is most dear and valuable in life, 
 every tiling that can most vitally affect our- 
 selves and our posterity. 
 
 " In the midst, however, of the satisfaction 
 which I felt, one reflection arose which has occa- 
 sioned me much pain, which has thrown a gloom 
 over my mind, and has prevented my fully enjoy- 
 ing the splendour of the present day. I have 
 been unable to avoid comparing what, it is too 
 evident, you have conceived me to be, with what 
 I feel I am. That I may not disappoint the ex- 
 pectations you have formed of me is my wish, 
 rather than my hope ; but there is no sacrifice to 
 which I will not submit, to accomplish it. 
 
 " Every man who offers himself as a candidate 
 for popular representation, puts himself, as it 
 were, upon his trial before his Country he must 
 expect the most severe inquiry into the whole 
 <f his past conduct, private as well as public. He 
 must expect to hear the whole truth, and more than
 
 BRISTOL ELECTION. 40 1 
 
 the truth. It is impossible that, in the midst of 
 the rivalship and of the various passions which 
 such occasions excite, calumny should not often 
 be mixed with just accusation. I cannot, how- 
 ever, consider it but as a circumstance highly 
 honourable to this city, and creditable to those to 
 whom I am opposed, that so very little has been 
 objected to me, of which any honest man need be 
 ashamed. 
 
 " Some things however have been objected to 
 me, upon which, if I am not trespassing too long 
 upon your patience, I should be glad to make 
 a few observations. It has been said that I once 
 filled a public office, and that I am desirous of 
 being again in such a situation, and of again re- 
 ceiving a salary from the public money. It is 
 true that I had the honour of being appointed His 
 Majesty's Solicitor General; and it is also true, 
 that if office were again offered to me under the 
 same circumstances, if I could accept it without 
 swerving in any degree from the line of conduct 
 which I have hitherto pursued ; if I should feel, * 
 that by accepting it, instead of abandoning my 
 principles, I should acquire the means of giving 
 effect to them it is true that I would accept it, 
 and would receive the honest emoluments belong- 
 ing to it. I should think that, by so doing, I 
 was not departing from, but discharging, my 
 duty; that- 1 was only putting myself in a situa- 
 tion to be more useful to the Country than I 
 
 3
 
 462 BRISTOL ELECTION. 
 
 can now be ; but, it is only by an adherence to 
 the principles which I have hitherto professed, that 
 I can ever be useful in any situation. I do not 
 however believe that I shall be put to this test ; I 
 have little doubts that I am destined to pass the 
 remainder of my life in privacy; and it is a desti- 
 nation with which I am well contented, for I had 
 rather leave to my children only a name connect-^ 
 ed with measures which tend to increase the hap- 
 piness, or to assuage the evil, of any portion of 
 my fellow-subjects, than the proudest title which 
 the Crown has to bestow, or the amplest posses- 
 sions which the long- enjoyment of the most lu- 
 crative office could enable me to acquire. 
 
 " It has been said, I understand, that I can- 
 not undertake that business relating to your 
 local interests, which is justly expected from a 
 representative of Bristol. To this my answer is, 
 that I have said, I will undertake it. It has been 
 observed, that to do so I must give up a large por- 
 tion of that time which is now occupied in the 
 pursuits of my profession ; but I have made such 
 sacrifices already to a considerable extent, and I 
 am prepared to make still greater sacrifices in 
 your service. 
 
 " I have seen it also stated, that I am a man 
 devoted to a political party. Gentlemen, if by 
 my devotion to party is meant, the giving up my 
 judgment, and voting against my reason and my 
 conviction, for measures, because those, with'
 
 BRISTOL ELECTION, 463 
 
 whom I generally act, have adopted them, I 
 wholly deny the charge, and I appeal to my con- 
 duct in Parliament for my defence : but if by at- 
 tachment to party, is meant only an adherence to 
 those whose public principles I wholly approve, 
 and in whose hands I, in my conscience, believe 
 the Government can be most safely intrusted, to 
 that charge I have no defence to make. I reflect 
 with satisfaction on my connexion with that Ad- 
 ministration, of which one of the principal mem- 
 bers was that illustrious Statesman that stre- 
 nuous assertor of the cause of religious and civil 
 liberty, the late and ever to be lamented Mr. 
 Fox, on my connexion with that Administration, 
 which was not exempt from errors undoubtedly, 
 but which carried the two measures which have 
 most tended to improve the condition of mankind, 
 of any that have taken place in the course of the 
 present reign, the abolition of the Slave Trade, 
 and the enlistment of Soldiers for a limited pe- 
 riod, instead of an enlistment for life, thus pre- 
 serving to those armed citizens, an interest in the 
 blessings of our Constitution, suspending only, 
 not taking away from them, the trial by Jury, 
 and the writ of Habeas Corpus, and thereby se- 
 curing to them a reversion of those liberties which 
 they had fought to defend. It is with satisfaction, 
 too, that I reflect upon the union of my name with 
 those of the distinguished Statesmen who are still 
 preserved to us. That I had an office under the
 
 464 BRISTOL ELECTION. 
 
 Administration of which they were the chiefs, 
 that I have enjoyed their friendships in retirement, 
 and that when they are excluded from office, be- 
 cause they will not abandon their principles, I 
 have the honour to be comprehended in that ex- 
 clusion, are to me matters of pride and exulta- 
 tion. 
 
 " I have seen other things objected to me in 
 publications, which are perhaps hardly worth no- 
 ticing. I have seen it objected, that I voted for 
 measures which I did not and could not vote 
 upon, because they were carried before I had a 
 seat in Parliament. I have heard it made a matter 
 of reproach to me, that I was the author of a 
 Bill which passed in the last Session, and which 
 has put an end to arrest upon mesne process for 
 debts of less amount than gl5. That measure 
 was not proposed by me; it originated in the 
 House of Lords ; it passed the Commons without 
 a single observation, and no vote was ever passed 
 upon it : but I claim no merit for this, for I ought 
 to add, that if it ever had come to a vote, I cer- 
 tainly should have supported it. 
 
 " There is another matter, which perhaps does 
 not deserve to be mentioned ; and yet I should 
 be glad to say a few words upon it. It has been 
 published in this city that I am a foreigner, and 
 that if you elect me you will send a foreigner to 
 represent you in a British Parliament. Gentle- 
 men, I was born and educated and have passed
 
 BRISTOL ELECTION. 465 
 
 my whole life in England, with the exception of a 
 short interval which was spent in visiting foreign 
 countries. My father too was born and educated 
 in England, and spent his whole life in it. My, 
 grandfather, it is true, was not an Englishman by 
 birth, but he was an Englishman by choice. He 
 was born the heir to a considerable landed estate 
 at Montpelier, in the South of France. His ances- 
 tors had early imbibed and adopted the principles 
 and doctrines of the reformed religion, and he 
 had been educated himself in that religious faith. 
 He had the misfortune to live soon after the time 
 when the edict of Nantes, the great Toleration 
 Act of the Protestants of France, was revoked by 
 Louis XIV.; and he found himself exposed to all 
 the vexations and persecutions of a bigotted and 
 tyrannical Government, for worshipping God in 
 the manner in which he believed was most accept- 
 able to him. He determined to free himself from 
 this bondage; he abandoned his property, he 
 tore himself from his connexions, and quitting 
 the country and its tyrant, sought an asylum 
 in this land of liberty, where he had to support 
 himself only by his own exertions. He embarked 
 himself in trade he educated his sons to useful 
 trades, and he was contented, at his death, to 
 leave them, instead of his original patrimony, no 
 other inheritance than the habits of industry he 
 had given them, the example of his own virtuous 
 life, an hereditary detestation of tyranny and in- 
 
 VOL. II. ' H H
 
 466 BRISTOL ELECTION. 
 
 justice, and an ardent zeal in the cause of civil 
 and religious freedom. Among other reasons I 
 have to bless his memory is that I am an Eng- 
 lishman. Gentlemen, this is my origin ; I trust I 
 need not blush to own it. 
 
 " Gentlemen, I am sorry to have so long de- 
 tained you. I can but again return you my 
 thanks. That I may be what you already so in- 
 dulgently believe me to be, is the first wish of my 
 heart and shall be the unremitted study of my 
 life." 
 
 BRISTOL ELECTION. 
 
 October 6th, 1812. 
 
 THE candidates for the representation of Bristol 
 were Mr. Hart Davis, Mr. Protheroe, Mr. Hunt, 
 and Sir Samuel Romilly. Sir Samuel Romilly 
 having been proposea by Mr. Castle, the Mayor of 
 Bristol, and seconded by Sir Abraham Elton, 
 Bart, rose and addressed the Meeting to the fol- 
 lowing effect. 
 
 " MR. SHERIFF AND GENTLEMEN, 
 
 c I appear before you to offer you my 
 services as one of your representative* in Parlia-
 
 BRISTOL EJjECTfON. 467 
 
 ment. If you shall repose that important trust in 
 me, I shall consider it as the highest honour that 
 can be conferred on me, ajul as the best reward I 
 can receive for my past endeavours to serve the 
 public. It is not, however, merely as an honour 
 and a reward that a seat in Parliament ought to be 
 considered, but as an office of great difficulty and 
 fatigue, of deep responsibility, and one which no 
 person in my situation can properly and hone'stly 
 lill, without making many, and almost constant 
 sacrifices of his time, his ease and his comforts, 
 perhaps of his health, and certainly of his emolu- 
 ments. Those sacrifices I am willing, nay, I am 
 anxious to make in your service, and I shall be 
 proud of having those duties imposed upon me. 
 If, however, you shall, in the contest which is 
 about to take place, decide against me, I shall sub- 
 mit to your decision with perfect cheerfulness ; 
 and if I am to retire into private life, I shall 
 (while I am enjoying those domestic comforts 
 which I have the happiness to possess in as large 
 a portion as falls to the lot of most men, and 
 while I am devoting my time to the occupations 
 of a lucrative profession) have the satisfaction to 
 reflect, that my doing so proceeds from no mean 
 or selfish motive of preferring my own private 
 advantage to the public good, but from my fellow- 
 citizens having rejected the services which I had 
 tendered them. 
 
 " It has been usual for persons who stand in the 
 H H 2
 
 468 BRISTOL ELECTION. 
 
 situation of candidates to make professions of 
 their political opinions, and to give promises of 
 their future conduct ; and this is undoubtedly 
 proper in those who have not yet been tried, and 
 who have no acts of their former life to refer to. 
 But with those whose public life is already before 
 you, such professions and promises can be of little 
 avail; for, either they are consistent with what 
 they have already done, and are then unneces- 
 sary, or are at variance with it, and in that case 
 are entitled to no credit. 
 
 " I shall therefore, upon this occasion, nei- 
 ther promise nor profess, nor shall I presume 
 to remind you of what I have attempted to do ; 
 but I may with propriety tell you what are the 
 qualifications, which in my opinion you ought, 
 at the present crisis, to look for in a represent- 
 ative. He ought to be a man firmly attached 
 to those principles of our Constitution which 
 were established at the Revolution, and which 
 have seated and maintained the present Royal 
 Family on the throne. He should justly ap- 
 preciate, and be ready at all times to maintain, 
 the liberty of the press and the trial by jury, 
 which are the great securities for all our other 
 liberties. He should be a sincere friend to peace, 
 and anxious to seize on every opportunity of se- 
 curing all the blessings which it must bring with 
 it, whenever there is a prospect that it can be per- 
 manently obtained. He ought to be determined,
 
 BRISTOL ELECTION. 469 
 
 whenever the men, with whose political principles 
 he generally agrees, and with whom he therefore 
 generally acts, propose or support measures which, 
 in his conscience, he disapproves, to oppose them, 
 just as if they were the measures of his political 
 adversaries. He should be an enemy to that in- 
 fluence of the Crown and of the Ministers of the 
 Crown which has been so fatally exercised in the 
 House of Commons, and consequently a friend to 
 Parliamentary reform. He should be a constant 
 advocate for economy in the public expenditure, 
 and a determined enemy to corruption and pecu- 
 lation ; and if he thinks he discovers them in 
 persons of the higher rank, he should not be de- 
 terred from censuring and arraigning them by any 
 apprehension, that by so doing he may incur their 
 high displeasure, and blast for ever all the pro- 
 spects of honourable ambition in which he may 
 at some time have indulged. He should be ready, 
 when he sees evils arising from any of our present 
 institutions, to inquire into the cause of them, 
 and to suggest a remedy, notwithstanding the re- 
 proach of being an innovator, which he may 
 incur from those who have an interest in perpetu- 
 ating abuses. Above all he should be a man 
 incapable of being swerved from his duty by the 
 threats of power, the allurements of the great, 
 the temptations of private interest, or even the 
 seduction of popular favour ; and who should 
 constantly recollect that all the toil, the pain, and 
 
 H H 3
 
 470 BRISTOL ELECTION. 
 
 the fatigue of his office, must be his own ; and 
 all the advantages which are to result from his 
 labours must be for the public. 
 
 " These are the qualifications which, in my 
 opinion, you ought to look for in your represent- 
 atives. Perhaps it is not prudent in me to state 
 them. Perhaps, in this enumeration, I have been 
 pronouncing my own condemnation ; and in 
 pointing out to you what is requisite in a member 
 of Parliament, I have only been reminding you of 
 what is wanting in myself. Of this you are the 
 judges ; but whatever be the consequence, I shall 
 rejoice in what I have done ; for this I can with 
 perfect sincerity declare, that I may be elected 
 by you is only the second wish of my heart. The 
 first is, that Bristol and other places of popular 
 election may send to Parliament, able, honest, 
 disinterested, and patriotic members. 
 
 " Gentlemen, amongst the qualifications which 
 are, in my opinion, requisite in a Member of Par- 
 liament, I have not said that he should be deter- 
 mined, under no circumstances, to accept an 
 office under the Crown. I have not said so ; be- 
 cause that is so far from being my opinion, that I 
 think there are circumstances in which it may be 
 his duty to accept such an office. I should be 
 sorry to be misunderstood by you upon this sub- 
 ject, and I am glad of this opportunity of avowing 
 what my opinion upon it is ; and indeed, in ap- 
 pealing to my past conduct, I have told you that
 
 BRISTOL ELECTION. 471 
 
 was my opinion, since I formerly myself held 
 an office under the Crown. If a man barters his 
 principles for office, if in office he acts upon 
 different grounds from those which he professed 
 to act upon, before he obtained it, and if his offi- 
 cial conduct is a constant violation of those rules 
 which he had, when in opposition, prescribed for 
 others, there are no terms which, in my opinion, 
 are too strong or too severe to stigmatize such 
 political apostacy. But if, in office, his views and 
 his principles are the same as when he was in 
 a private station, he deserves, in my opinion, no 
 reproach for accepting it : and if it be, as I con- 
 ceive it is, the duty of every man to use all the 
 means which he possesses of being useful to his fel- 
 low-citizens and his fellow-creatures; and if, by ac- 
 cepting office, he may become eminently useful to 
 them, it is his duty to accept it. If this opinion 
 draws upon me the reproach of being eager to 
 obtain office myself, I have only to entreat you to 
 consider my past conduct. If you have found me 
 paying my court to those in favour, professing opi- 
 nions which are known to be a recommendation 
 to office, or using those means of acquiring it, 
 which have generally proved to be successful ; in 
 that case, but only in that case, fix this reproach 
 upon me, and reject me for your Representative. 
 
 " In enumerating what is, in my opinion, requi- 
 site in a Member of Parliament, I have omitted to 
 say that he ought to be a friend to toleration, and
 
 472 BRISTOL ELECTION. 
 
 an advocate for religious liberty to persons of all 
 persuasions, but more especially to all descrip- 
 tions of Christians ; and that he ought to be a zeal- 
 ous supporter of that, which is, as I think, truly 
 called Catholic emancipation, as being of vital 
 importance to the security and happiness of this 
 country, and which consists only in removing dis- 
 abilities and disqualifications to which the great 
 majority of the people of Ireland are subject, 
 only for professing and adhering to that religion 
 in which they sincerely believe, and in which 
 they have been brought up by their fathers. 
 
 " After saying so much of the duties of a 
 Member of Parliament, permit me to remind you of 
 the importance of that duty which you are to 
 discharge. One more important never can de- 
 volve upon you. On the Parliament which is 
 about to be elected, will depend every thing that 
 is dear to you and to your posterity, the happiness, 
 the prosperity, the safety, perhaps the existence 
 of this Country. You are to exercise an important 
 trust, not for yourself only, but for that large de- 
 scription of your fellow- subjects, who, in the 
 present state of the representation, have no voice 
 upon these occasions.
 
 WESTMINSTER ELECTION. 473 
 
 WESTMINSTER ELECTION. 
 
 July 4>th, 1818. 
 
 AT the close of the election for Westminster Sir 
 Samuel Romilly came forward on the hustings, 
 and addressed the people to the following effect : 
 " Gentlemen, as long as the contest, which has 
 just terminated, was depending as long as" my 
 appearance amongst you could be considered as a 
 solicitation of your votes for an honour, which 
 whatever the kind partiality of my friends may 
 have induced them to think, I never presumed to 
 imagine myself deserving of, I abstained from 
 presenting myself to you; but now that the contest 
 is at an end, now that I have been chosen one 
 of your Representatives, and that I can address 
 you by the endearing name of my Constituents, I 
 hasten to appear before you, and to thank you for 
 the honour you have done me, and for the confi- 
 dence you have placed in me. To be chosen 
 by your free and unbiassed votes, to represent this 
 great, populous, independent, and enlightened 
 City in Parliament, to be selected from amongst 
 public men to declare your will, and express your 
 sentiments upon all the most important questions
 
 474 WESTMINSTER ELECTION. 
 
 that can interest the community, is, in my estima- 
 tion, the highest honour to which, in this free 
 State, any individual can be raised. It is an ho- 
 nour to which, notwithstanding the decision you 
 have pronounced, I can still hardly venture to 
 think that I had any just pretensions. The en- 
 deavours I have used to serve the public, have, by 
 the too indulgent partiality of others, been greatly 
 over-rated ; and I ought rather to offer an apology 
 for what has been said of me, than to claim the 
 benefits of such a panegyric. I have, indeed, en- 
 .deavoured to be useful to the public, but my en- 
 deavours have seldom been successful. Such, how- 
 ever, as they are, it is those endeavours which alone 
 have recommended me to your favour; for though 
 born, and having passed my whole life amongst 
 you, it is by my public conduct alone that I have 
 become known to you. 
 
 " Gentlemen, I really have not words ade- 
 quately to express the gratitude which I feel. I 
 am sensible, however, that the thanks which it 
 will become me to give, and which will be worthy 
 of you to receive, are thanks not to be expressed 
 in words but in actions, not in this place, but 
 within the walls of the House of Commons. The 
 Representative of Westminster should express his 
 thanks by a faithful discharge of the sacred duties 
 which you have imposed on him by a constant 
 and vigilant attention to the public interest, by 
 5
 
 WESTMINSTER ELECTION. 475 
 
 being a faithful guardian of the people's liberties, 
 and a bold assertor of their rights by resisting 
 all attacks whether open or insidious, which may 
 be made upon the Liberty of the Press, the Trial 
 by Jury, and the Habeas Corpus, the great secu- 
 rity of all our liberties by opposing all attempts 
 to substitute in the place of that Government 
 of law and justice to which Englishmen have been 
 accustomed, a Government supported by spies 
 and informers by endeavouring to restrain the 
 lavish and improvident expenditure of public 
 money by opposing all new and oppressive taxes, 
 and above all, that grievous, unequal, and inqui- 
 sitorial imposition, the Income Tax, if any at- 
 tempt should be made in the new Parliament to 
 revive it by endeavouring to procure the abo- 
 lition of useless and burdensome offices. a more 
 equal representation of the people in Parliament, 
 and a shorter duration of the Parliament's exist- 
 ence by being a friend of religious, as well as of 
 civil liberty, and by seeking to restore this Coun- 
 try to the proud station which it held amongst 
 nations, when it was the secure asylum of those 
 who were endeavouring to escape in foreign coun- 
 tries from religious or political persecution. 
 
 " These are the thanks which the Electors of 
 Westminster are entitled to expect ; and when the 
 time shall come that I shall have to render you an 
 account of the trust you have committed to me, I
 
 476 WESTMINSTER ELECTION. 
 
 trust in God, that I shall be able to show that I 
 have discharged it honestly and faithfully. 
 Gentlemen, for myself I return you my sincerest 
 thanks, and for the result of the election I offer 
 you my warmest congratulations.'* 
 
 THE END OP VOLUME THE SECOND. 
 
 Printed by S. Gosnell, Little Queen Street, London.
 
 HO SB LIB RAW
 
 ' r 'VXx x 
 
 y \\ .\. 
 
 /'/
 
 A 000 fil ft l """""" 1 
 
 if: m 
 
 MM 
 
 mm : m 
 
 Iff *V 
 
 'A N 
 
 I 
 . 1 
 
 ' - \