Bench of No! no!] I do not mean,' said Mr. Fox, to "I overstate the power-God knows there is no occasion for that; for there seems to be sufficient care taken of magisterial authority in every step of this proceeding. Behold, then, the state of a free-born Englishman!-before he can discuss any topic which involves his liberty, he must send to a Magistrate, who is to attend the discussion. That Magistrate cannot prevent such meeting, but he can prevent the speaking, because he can allege, that what is said tends to disturb the peace and tranquillity of this realm.

“: Sir, I hope this Bill will never come into this House. I am not friendly to any thing that will produce violence. Those who know me will not impute to me any such desire; but I do hope, that this Bill will produce an alarm; that while we have the power of assembling, the People will assemble; that while they have the power, they will not surrender it, but come forward and state their abhorrence of the principle of this proceeding; and those who do not, I pronounce to be traitors to their Country. Good God, Sir, what madness, what frenzy, has overtaken the authors of this measure! I will suppose for a moment that the only object which they have in view is the preventing a Revolution in this Country. But that they should have proceeded upon a plan which has no regard for the Liberty of the People, no regard for the glorious efforts of our ancestors, no regard for their maxims, no esteem for the principles and the conduct which have made us what we are, or rather, if this Bill be countenanced, what we were, is to me astonishing! For to proceed thus, in order to suppress or prevent popular tumults, appears to me to be the most desperate infatuation. Good God, Sir! We have seen and have heard of Revolutions in different States-Were they owing to the freedom of popular opinions?-Were they owing to the facility of popular meetings?—No, Sir, they were owing to the reverse of these; and therefore I say, if we wish to avoid the danger of such Revolutions, we should put ourselves in a state as different from them as possible. What are we now doing? Putting ourselves in a conditon nearly resembling the periods when these Revolutions happened. In the reign of Charles 1. the most interesting period to which we can look in the history of this Country, was freedom of speech indulged to any latitude; or were libels suffered to pass without notice? On the contrary, were not both, at that time, punished with an extraordinary degree of rigour? Is it the intention of Ministers, by these arbitrary measures, to bring the Country into the same dis

astrous situation in which it was plunged during that unhappy reign? It might have been hoped, that the impressive lessons of modern times, and of events still fresh in their consequences, had not yet been forgotten. Look to France before the period of her Revolution. Was it the facility of Public Meetings, or the freedom of discussion granted to the subject, that tended to produce that great change? On the contrary, was it not the absolute prerogative of the King? Was it not the arbitrary power lodged in Ministers?

Was it not the oppressive privilege of issuing Lettres de Cachet against all who dared to utter their sentiments, and complain of existing grievances, that exited the indignation of the People, and accelerated the downfall of the Monarchy? If, therefore, one view of the present measure held out to your acceptance, be in order to prevent troubles arising from the frequency of popular assemblies, on that very ground ought the friends of peace and of order to resist the adoption of the measure. In countries where men may openly state their grievances and boldly claim redress, the effect of their complaints and remonstrances may, indeed, for a time, be obstructed by the operation of ministerial corruption and intrigue; but perseverance must ultimately be effectual in procuring them relief. But if you take away all legal means of obtaining that object, if you silence remonstrance and stifle complaint, you then leave no other alternative, but force and violence, These are means so of question whether any good they produce can possibly compensate for the evils with which they are necessarily attended; such means as scarcely even the best cause can justify.

dreadful in their effects, that it may be mat means so

"Let us examine a little closely the argument on which so much stress is laid, namely, the danger that may arise from a popular discussion of grievances. If the pretext of grievauces be groundless, and not warranted by an immediate pressure, the more it is discussed, the less effect it will have fn exciting discontent. But if you preclude these political humours, if I may so call them, from having a vent, you then leave no alternative but unconstitutional submission, or actual violence. If ever there exists a just cause of grievance, one or other must be adopted; a tape acquiescence, incompatible with the spirit of freedom, or an open resistance, subversive of the order of government, I know that peace and quiet are the greatest of all blessings; but I know also that rational liberty is the only security for their enjoyment, I admire the British Constitution, because it gives scope to the People to exercise the right of political discussion; net

merely with the permission of a Magistrate, or under the control of an executive force, but on all occasions to state, in bold and plain words, the grievances which they feel, and the redress which they desire. I have only now to express my firm determination to oppose the Bill in every stage of its progress. And in the first instance, I shall conceive it necessary to move for a call of the House, as it impossible for me to suffer a question, which involves só material an alteration of the Constitution, to pass in this House, without solemnly calling on every Member to give a vote on the discussion."

FOLLY OF A PRINCE SUFFERING HIMSELF TO BE GOVERNED BY HIS MINISTERS.

NEVER were we so astonished, as on reading the proceedings of the House of Commons on Monday night, in the case of Ereach of Privilege by John Cam Hobhouse, Esq. How long is such a villainous system to continue? A Gentleman, the Author of a pamphlet, is accused of a Breach of Privileges of the House, and summarily com hitted by that House to His Majesty's grol of Newgate, without even being heard in his defence! Nay, it was held unnecessary to call for his attendance at the bar, the party injured are his accusers and his judges, and will not allow of any defence. This is justice with a vengeance ! We now, however, protest, in the name of the People, against this barefaced usurpation of arbitrary power, against the spirit of the Constitution, which expressly says, that no man shall be tried but by his peers. Mr. Courtenay read an extract from the proceedings of a Committee, to prove that the House of Commons had a legal power to commit those who might be guilty of a breach of its Privileges, but it was shrilar to its usual bungling reports of Committees. It argued that it had a similar right to commit as had the Court of King's Bench. What glaring stupidity! The Court of King's Beach can commit only for a contempt of Court, arising from abusive or indecorous behaviour in Court; for a pamphlet written in derision of their authority, they could only prosecute in the usual way for libel. Even committal for contempt of Court should be only during the term of its sitting, and not, as at present, for an indennite time; or, as it sometimes happens, for life. If a stranger were to abuse the House of Commons within its walls while sitting, he would then be guilty of a breach of its Privileges, and subject himself in consequence to an adequate degree of

punishment; but for the House of Commons to take upon itself the power of punishing a libel without the intervention of a Jury, is a gross violation of the chartered Rights of Englishmen. As soon as the present Bills for seditious libel are passed into laws, we shall have the House transporting the Editors and Publishers of all independent publications, without the assistance of either Judge or Jury. Mr. Martin, of Galway, made, on this occasion, the only sensible speech that ever escaped his lips. Ife contended that the proper way would be to direct His Majesty's Attorney-General to file a Criminal Information against the Author, and let the subject go before the regular tribunals of the Country.

The conduct of Mr. Brougham and the rest of the Whigs upon this occasion, was, in our opinion, nothing short of treachery to the Liberties of the People, which they have pledged themselves to protect. Why did they not move he should at least be heard in his defence? Why coincide in the resolution, that TRUTH IS A LIBEL! and move for the committal of a Freeman for having written and published it? For ought we know, we maybe similarly treated for writing this very article, but we will tell truth, though the whole House was in an uproar, at hearing that which is so seldom heard.

Sir Francis Burdett is the only Member of that House who ever speaks the sentiments of the People; and he spoke truly, when he said that "the jurisprudence of the House was worse than that of Rhadamanthus, who punished first, and heard afterwards; whereas they punish, and will not hear at all!" This we predict will be the final overthrow of Trial by Jury: if juries will not convict those who may, under the new code, be accused of telling Truth, a Bill will be brought in, authorising the House to inflict the punishment for that which Juries think is rather deserving of eulogy. We will, while we can, notwithstanding, advocate the rights of Man and of Englishmen. If England should become (which Heaven forbid!) the footstool of a military despot, banishment will have no terrors for us. Any land is preferable to a land of slavery; and the only regret we shall experience, is, that we shall be deprived of the satisfaction of sharing in the contest for our country's independence. We still feel convinced that there is a spirit of independence in England, upon which Lord Castlereagh does not calculate, and which will, if he persists in his present

* It was not a libel, for it was true in every particular.

course, finally be his ruin, and the ruin of his misguided Prince. There is such an analogy between the case of the Prince Regent and Charles II. that we cannot forbear giving our readers the following paragraph, and, should it meet the eye of his Royal Highness, we hope that he will profit by the lesson it contains:

"Charles the First came to the Crown of this Kingdom by hereditary right, recognized by the whole Nation. At the time of his coronation, there was not a man that did not rejoice; the vast concourse and universal acclamations of all his people, expressing the joy and love they felt on their new King's accession, was almost beyond the strength of expression. Had his title then been disputed, not a single man could have been found in any part of his dominjous, who would not with alacrity have hazarded his blood and fortune in support of his King; but short indeed · wasthe duration of this celestial scene. The imperious Buckingham, the arrogant and revengeful Archbishop Laud, and the apostate Wentworth, turning from the defence of Liberty to the rise of despotism, soon changed it to a scene of horror. They persuaded the deluded King to consider his faithful subjects as mobs, rebels, and traitors, for complaining against their ignorance, pride, and tyranny. His Majesty persevering in the mistaken notion of their evil counsel, fatally changed his People's love and obedience to terror, hatred, and the dread of arms, which ended in the loss of his crown and life; a catastrophe brought on by the wicked measures of his detested Ministers against the Laws and Constitution of their Country."

BEWARE OF SPIES!

THE wildest sedition and the blackest blasphemy, much as they are to be condemned, are harmless, in comparison with that despotism that would defile the Constitution, under the pretence of preserving it. Whether the intention be the effect of fraud or folly, it is alike dangerous to the people. In pity we might be induced to attribute the direful errors, of administration to incapacity, rather than malevolence; but we must sigh for our country, when the strength of Giants is wanted, to see Pigmies at the helm. If Government were the heritage of the FEW and the bondage of the MANY, the actions of Ministers would be just, and their inferences conclusive; but time has rolled on in long suc