Cap of Liberty. A London Weekly Political Publication. No. 15, Vol. 1.] Wednesday, December 15th, 1819. [PRICE 2d. If Humanity shows to the God of this World, 'Tis that of a PEOPLE with banner unfurl'd, C. PHILLIPS, A REVIEW OF THE REPRESENTATIVE SYSTEM, WITH AN OPINION OF SOME OF THE OPPOSITION MEMBERS, WHO can read the Debates in the House of Lords, and not admire the wisdom of our hereditary legislators? On the second reading of the Bill for the SUPPRESSION of the LIBERTY of the PRESS, Lord Caernarvon moved as an amendment in the case of a second conviction for libel, the period of transportation (which they smuggle upon the People under the term of banishment) should be limited to SEVEN YEARS, and not be left to the discretion of the Judge, according to the provisions of the Act in its present form. Now really such a paltry opposition to such infamous measures is worse than contemptible. The good, the virtuous, and the independent part of the nation, condemned the punishment of transportation in cases of SEDITIOUS libel, as an outrage on every principle of justice, as an outrage on all the better feelings of human nature, and as an outrage to the loudly-expressed opinions of the great majority of the population of Great Britain and Ireland. None but ideots, or men bordering on ideotism, would dream of quibbling about the limitation of the period, when it was the principle, and the principle alone, that should be contended for. We will pass this Noble Lord, and proceed to another of rather more note, and certainly one whose opinions are entitled to greater consideration than those of Lord Caernarvon -we mean Lord Erskine: a name for which we at one time entertained the highest respect, and the dwindling of whose T. DAVISON, Printer and Publisher, 10, Duke Street, Smithfield. faculties in the usual course of old age and nature, we cannot help viewing with regret. His Lordship, it is true, opposed the punishment of transportation in cases of libel; but, gracious Heavens, upon what grounds! He admitted that a person who wrote a libel, or rather two libels, was deserving of similar punishment to a thief or a felon; nay, that a felon was an innocent character when compared with the author of a libel; and therefore his Lordship besought the House that they would not send those convicted of that offence to the colony at Botany Bay, if they value its secuvity; for a few such inmates would corrupt and contaminate the convicts. Corrupt a colony of thieves! Well, well, as Massinger says, "This is a Lord ;" and from such Lords, good Lord deliver us. Lest our readers should imagine that we are turning his Lordship into ridicule by misrepresentation, we will give his own words upon the occasion, and let them judge if we have exaggerated the absurdity of his arguments: "Though I feel the utmost abhorrence at the disgusting blasphenies circulated among the LOWER CLASSES, I do not think any additional punishment necessary for their suppression. It is true that transportation properly applied is a useful punishment. Impurities, which, if suffered to remain, might lead to contagion and death, should be put forth; so should persons dangerously injurious to the Country: but is it right to send them forth to a new colony, to poison the hearts and understandings of an infant state*. Besides, as far as the offenders themselves were concerned, a greater punishment might be inflicted under the existing law; he might be imprisoned for each fresh offence, and cut off from the comforts of social intercourse, rejected and despised; whereas if sent abroad, he might find congenial Hinds [amongst thieves and highwaymen] to console him, and might do infinite mischief among those growing colonies, [his Lordship still alludes to the convicts for felony] who are perhaps destined to be a blessing to the MOTHER COUNTRY." As to corrupting the morals of people convicted of felony, we know not what to say; but we really think any alteration must be for the better. . There is one thing, however, we would wish his Lordship to be informed of. We are citizeus of the world; and in despite of those Press-abolition Bills, we will continue our A genteel term for a colony of transported felons! Poor dear innocents! their hearts will be poisoned by an association with perhaps the first literary characters in Great Britain. most strenuous exertions to reform the abuses in the Administration, and in the Parliament of our country. Should the zeal and ardour of our efforts in the cause of freedom hurry us into what the Boroughmongers term a libel; and should we in consequence fall beneath the iron grasp of a set of despots, who will send us to Lord Erskine's "infant colony," we do not doubt but that there we shall find abuses; in which case we pledge ourselves most solemuly to use every exertion to reform them. We are not to be deterred from our patriotic exertions by the frowns or threats of a too successful TRAITOR. A long conversation, or rather a long debate, took place amongst these noble grey-beards, relative to a definition of the words "seditious libel," which are perhaps more vague. and undefinable than any other two words in either Sheridan's or Johnson's Dictionary. Upon this topic, Lord Ellenborough, who is in most respects an exact prototype of his independent parent, attempted to descant; and at length came the following conclusion or definition of whnt. was a seditious libel. "It was," he suggested, "one caculated to bring his Majesty's person, or the Government and Constitution, or either House of Parliament, into hatred and contempt, or calculated to excite his Majesty's subjects to attempt any alteration of any matter in Church or state as by law established, otherwise than by lawful means." The Earl of Liverpool observed across the table, that he had. no objection to the definition, with the addition of the words" or the person of the Prince Regent." In this form the definition was agreed to by the House; and now we will just reflect a little upon its cousequences. Hencefort no man is to find fault with the proceedings of either House of Parliament, however infamous, under pain of a heavy fine or imprisonment, or both together; and for a secon offence, banishment or transportation, the period to be left to the discretion of the Court of King's Bench: and what a Court, when the Jury are out of it, or when the Judges have it all their own way!!! The Prince Regent's name is also lugged in, as it were, by the head an I ears; the reason for this, however, is apparent: Mr. Hone's House that Jack Built has nettled the "Dandy of sixty," who with cheeks as red as the comb of a turkey-cock, and whiskers as erect as its tail, has, we suppose given orders to his Prime Minister to enact Statutes, which may send all the caricaturists in the Metropolis to Algiers or Constantinople, to write panegyrics on the comparative liberty of the Turks and AJgeiriness to that which is enjoyed by freemen under that specious title, in Great Britain and Ireland. Next Session of Parliament we doubt not but that a Bill will be introduced to render the name and title of Mr. STEWART, Lord Viscount Castlereagh, equally inviolable, and in a subsequent Session the whole of the Ministry, with all the Boroughmongers, will be similarly included. It is evident to the meanest understanding, that according to the foregoing difinition of seditious libel, every plain narrative of facts-nay, the Report in the Publie Journals, of their own. Debates, will come under that denomination, for they really qold up to our view a most coniemptible idea of the speakers of either House of Parliament. We have before given our opinion that those Bills are but a prelude to the abolition of Trial by Jury, and we see by the Report of the Southwark Meeting, that Sir Robert Wilson entirely coincides with us in our ideas upon the subject. But they must (said Sir Robert) see the situa tion in which Juries were placed by this Bill; if they did not find a verdict, it was sure to be said by the Judge * that they had not done their duty; and if they did find a verdict under such a law, their country would say, that they had violated every dictate of common sense, of true justice, and of suffering humanity. But this was not all. If they did not so proceed to find a verdict, the next thing would be the ABOLITION of TRIAL BY JURY. He did not say this without reason: one of the Ministers of the Crown, a Noble Lord, speaking upon the Bills before their notice, had already said, 'It is not our intention to abolish Trial by Jury, as if something was agitated in his own mind, to that effect, and he (Sir Robert Wilson) would forfeit his life, if that would not be the case, after these measures should have passed, at some future period. We confess, however, that we had not the slightest con~ ception that so early an attempt of this kind would be made by the House of Commons, which is now very busy with a publication which appeared some time since, under the title of a "Trifling Mistake," and of which Mr. Hobhouse is acknowledged as the author. It seems that in this publi cation (which we know nothing more of than we learn from newspaper report) it was asked, "What prevents the Peo ple from reforming the House themselves, by pulling the Members out by the nose, locking the doors, and throwing the keys into the Thames." The House of Commons in con Sir Robert, like ourselves, seems to think that there are not too many independent or impartial Judges in the kingdom, when the Crown is plaintiff. sequence summon the Publisher before the bar of the House, in order to give up the Author, and on Monday night the question was discussed, and the Author sent to Newgate, under the Speaker's warrant, without the intervention of Jury, and this is what is denominated the Constitution of England. If Juries are not found to be sufficiently pliable, an Act will be passed, authorising the House to extend its own power by punishing with imprisonment during pleasure, all those who may tell them that they have usurped the Rights of the People, and that their legislation is consequently illegal. Who could listen to that worse than madman, Mr. Stuart Wortley, in delivering the following sentence, and not be ready to execrate the callousness of his heart, and to pray to the Great Disposer of events, as we do most fervently, that he may one day suffer but even half the misery he sneers at that he may hear his wife or child cry to him for bread, and not have wherewithal to give them!-The execration has escaped HSwould that we could recal it;not because he is undeserving of it:-no; but because it is visiting the sins of the father upon the children, and upon his wife. Yes, it is no more than what one half of those why are petitioning for Reform are daily hearing. We would fain conjure to his view the famishing wife the starving child-the bed of straw-the empty fire-place the threadbare garments the wan countenances the agonizing cries of infancy for bread! Bat, no the heart-rending, the maddening scene, will not be endured even in fancy, though millions are compelled to feel it in reality His words are as follows: He agreed with gentlemen opposite, that a very great majority of the People of this Country wished for Reform; but he was desirous that the subject should be discussed, because the more it was discussed, the more would the People be convinced of the folly and absurdity of the opinion that had been propagated, THAT REFORM WAS A CURE FOR ALL THEIR DISTRESSES. He would say, that any change in the constitution of that House would be a change in the Constitution of the land, and therefore ought not to be introduced." Now this gentleman acknowledges that Reform is desired by a great majority of the nation, and yet has the arrogance to suppose that his private opinion is of more weight; or in other words, that one half the kingdom are fools, when compared to Mr. Stuart Wortley. Oh, rare Mr. Wortley! do set your wisdom to work, and endeavour to remedy the distress otherwise than by Reform. We would ask Mr. Wortley, if it would be a change in the Constito |