bringing misdemeanors to trial; and the fifth is to abolish the Liberty of the Press. We say to abolish, because the restrictions and penalties actually amount to an abolition of that great Paladium of independence. Every Publisher must, it seems, find two or three securities that he will abide by the consequences of what he publishes. What man, we ask, will wish to be perpetual bail for another, however respectable? This alone amounts to an abolition of the Liberty of the Press; but this is not all-if a Publisher is convicted twice of Libel or Sedition, he is, at the discretion of the Judge, liable to transportation for seven years. There are also penalties attached to Hawkers and Venders of unstamped Publications. In short, nothing is left undone to completely cripple the independent Press of this unfortunate Kingdom. We now, in the name of the People, solemnly protest against these proceedings, and declare it to be our firm conviction, that insurrection against such measures is a duty which the Public will owe to themselves, if those measures are sanctioned by the House of Commons. The only Palladium or shadow of Freedom which is now left us, is Trial by Jury; and while yet we may, we caution all Jurymen throughout the Kingdom, to beware how they convict any individual who is charged before them with having violated laws, which law violate the Constitution itself, and are therefore illegal, unjust, and, in the words of the venerable Major Cartwright, should be holden for nought. Jurymen are bound by every tie of Patriotism and of independence, to give their verdict according to the Constitution, and not according to the laws which are enacted by bad men for the purpose of overturning that Constitution, that they may largely profit by its demolition. Private conspiracies will now be every where set on foot, and private conspiracies will, in our opinion, be justifiable and patriotic. There is yet another topic which his Lordship introduced as it were in a cursory manner; viz. that Debating Societies should be considered illegal, unless licensed by a Magistrate. In short, the intention of Ministers is evidently to put a final period to every species of political disquisition. This they will doubtless effect, as relates to public disquisition, but the question is, whether the private political debaets, which will be the inevitable consequence, will not be infinitely more hazardous to their personal security, as well as to their despotic power. To hear his Lordship speak (we mean Lord Castlereagh), one would be apt to imagine that he was extremely tenacious of the Liberties of the Peopel, at the very moment he is giving them a final and a fatal biow, There is one subject which clearly proves that the Whigs have lost the opportunity of protecting the lives, liberties, and properties of the People; hitherto, any man who had the pecuniary means of so doing, had as clear and ostensible a right to raise a regiment of soldiers or armed citizens, as had Lord Castlereagh, or any other member of his Majesty's Government. Why did not the Whigs thus render themselves serviceable and efficient in the protection of the People? The plea that "it will lead to civil war" will not avail them: What, we ask, will it lead to now? Will any man pretend to say that we have any other alternative than slavery, or what is as bad? There is none other, and of two evils, let Britons choose the least. Slavery is a bitter and a lasting thorn in the breast of those who have been born in a land of Freedom. Resorting to forcible means is a lamentable evil, but it is sometimes unavoidable, and circumstances will often make it a necessary, a just, although a mournful and a tragic method of regaining emancipation from despotic slavery. If an appeal to arms should be deemed by the People necessary, as their dernier resort, may the bitterest execrations fall upon the head of the individual who may be found in the ranks of the despotic tyrants - who oppress us. For our own parts, we are always ready to sacrifice every thing at the shrine of Freedom. We are ready to pour forth our heart's blood in the cause of National Independence, and when the last faint sigh is quivering upon our expiring lips, that sigh shall be breathed to Heaven, as a prayer for the prosperity of Freedom!-shall be an apostrophe to her insulted altar!' "Oh! 'tis sweeter to bleed for an age at thy shrine, THE NECESSITY OF A REVISION IN THE LI- THE licensing system in this country has more than once engaged our attention, although other motives more important, if possible, prevented us from giving our sentiments upon that subject to our readers. We cannot, however, let pass without a comment the application which was last week made in the Court of King's Bench, for a rule to shew cause why an action for damages should not be preferred against Sir Nathaniel Conant, for refusing to grant a license to a Publican, without any sufficient reasons for so doing, by which he has been thrown into a prison, and his family reduced to the deepest poverty and distress. We will give our readers the proceedings in this case, from which they 'will be the better enabled to judge of the transaction. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 26. Mr. Scarlett moved for and obtained a rule to shew cause why a criminal information should not be filed against Sir N. Conant, Thos. Collins, Esq. George Gaspie, Esq. and Samuel Mills, Esq. Magistrates of the county of Middlesex, for a supposed breach of their duty, in refusing to grant a license to a publican of the name of Meeke, who held a public-house in St. John's-lane, Clerkenwell. Mr. Meeke purchased the lease of the house in question in 1814, and invested a capital of £1254. At first he dealt with Reid, Meux, and Company, and while he did so, he enjoyed his license. In 1816, however, not being satisfied with their beer, he quitted them, and dealt with Barclay and Perkins. The next year he lost his license, and had not been able to obtain it since. He had in consequence been entirely ruined. He attributed this refusal to grant his license-as he had obtained the strongest recommendations from the inhabitants and officers of his parish, as to the regularity of his house-to the undue influence exercised by a partner in the house of Reid and Co. over Sir Nathaniel Conant and the other persons named. Whether Sir Nathaniel Conant has any share in the concern of Meux, Reid, and Company, we are not aware; but that concern has evidently an influence over his magisterial decisions: and yet, had this concern been brought forward in any shape in the House of Commons, a number of Members would instantly rise up to declare that Sir Nathaniel was to their knowledge a man of unimpeachable integrity. However this may be, it is a convincing proof of the injudiciousness of reposing (we might say) an arbitrary power in the breast of any individual. We feel convinced that the present system of granting licenses is attended with the most pernicious consequence to the People, in every part of the country. If a brewer has interest sufficient with the Magistracy, he may sell the most infamous stuff as porter, to the exclusion of that which is really good and wholesome. This, however, is not the only evil consequence attending it, as in many instances we have seen in London. If a publican allows in his house a political disquisition at all unfavourable to the wishes of the present Ministry, his license is sure to be withheld by the Magistrates, one and all of whom are the subservient and devoted tools of Administration. Of the character of Sir Nathaniel Conant we know but very little, but we confess that this transaction has impressed us with no very favourable idea of his integrity. How he could reconcile it to his conscience thus to plunge an industrious family into ruin, we are at a loss to conjecture, unless he has a share in the brewery, in which case the motive becomes self-evident; but a person who is capable of being actuated by such motives in the exercise of his public duties-a person who makes the administration of justice subservient to his own private interest, is certainly unfit to fill the magisterial chair, and should, on full proof of the alleged circumstances, be immediately discarded from further official services. Corruption, however, is in the present state of the kingdom rather a recommendation than otherwise, to places of trust and emolument. The Manchester Magistrates received the thanks of our most gracious Prince, for sabreing the People on the 16th of August; and therefore we suppose that SirNathaniel expected a similar letter, for attempting to ty-rannise over a few of them for his own benefit. Out of all the Magistrates of England, perhaps ten could. not be adduced who are openly hostile to the spirit of despotism evidently displaying itself in every measure of the Administration. One half of them would willingly sheath their swords in the bosoms of their fellow-citizens, to gain even a single approving smile from Royalty-would drench the country in the blood of its inhabitants, that they might be graciously received at a levee, or have the honor of kissing the Prince's hand, before a full assemblage of admiring ladies. This is a most humiliating custom, which for the honor of human nature we hope will ere long be abolished, though Courtiers adhere so pertinaciously to ancient customs, however mean, degrading, or subservient. The case of this unfortunate man will be laid before the Public, as soon as the record between him and his oppressor will be tried in the Court of King's Bench; when a just estimate may be formed of the merits or demerits of Sir Nathaniel Conant. This gentleman's conduct, however, although it should eventually prove to be perfectly correct, cannot invalidate our argument that the licensing system is altogether pernicious, because he and every other Magistrate evidently possess a power which may, in the hands of a venal or interested individual, be attended with melancholy and disastrous consequences to numbers of well-disposed residents in his neigbourhood. Of Mes rs. Meux, Reid, and Co. we shall say but little: we really think that they ought rather to place reliance on the strength and goodness of their porter for its sale, rather than on such sinister measures as upon this occasion they have so glaringly resorted to. A LETTER TO LAWYER BROUGHAM, SIR, IN your speech in the House of Commons on Wednesday evening, you expressed your surprise that Ministers had not prosecuted certain Publications, which, without naming, you quoted from, merely by the assistance of, it now appears, a very bad memory. One of these was a Newspaper which declared, that "the House of Commons was an imposture, the House of Lords was an imposture, and the King an imposture." I do not know to what Paper you allude, but as I suppose the Editor will defend his own sentiments, I will not enter into the merits of them, but content myself with defending the Cap of Liberty from from your gross misrepresentations. The article which you vent your spleen against, is the same as the one relative to which I was some weeks since attacked in a most disingenuous manner by The Examiner.* I have replied to him, and he has since been silent! Now, Sir, I am by means angry with a man who may differ in opinion with, and abuse my sentiments, as much and as often as he pleases; I give my opinions to the Public, and the Public are entitled to canvass them as they please; but yet I conceive that no man, no, not even a Member of Parliament, has a right to misrepresent those opinions, let them be good or let them be bad. It so happens that you, Sir, have been guilty of this misrepresentation, and in a manner, if possible, to aggravate the offence, your avowed purpose being to induce Ministers to commence a prosecution against me, by upbraiding them for neglect of duty, in not having done so before. You said, Sir, in the House of Commons, that the Cap of Liberty, which you designated a Catechism, set forth," that murder and treason were not crimes." Really, Mr. Brougham, you, who are a lawyer, ought to be more particular and correct in your constructions of the English language; though it may be, that you can understand nothing unless it be transcribed in the incomprehensible jargon of the law. The fact is, I was not at all asking or arguing about what does or what does not constitute crime; but merely giving my sentiments of what ought or ought not to be considered Treason, and in doing this, I said that the murder of a Monarch holding his Crown by hereditary right only, could not, in my opinion, The Examiner is an obscure Sunday Paper, |
