mode of proceeding proposed by the motion, but as it was not proposed to prosecute the printer and publisher, he was adverse to the affair resting where it was, and would therefore move, "That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions to his attorney-general to prosecute John Reeves, esq. as the author or publisher of the said pamphlet." The motion was then agreed to.*

оп

Debate in the House of Lords on Mr. Reeves's Libel the British Constitution.] Dec. 2. The order of the day being read, The Earl of Albemarle said, he would state, as shortly as possible, the reasons that had induced him to cause their lordships to be summoned upon the consideration of a pamphlet which he was sure all who read it must acknowledge to be a performance that required their immediate interference. The pamphlet contained doctrines directly hostile to the spirit of our constitution, and tending to alienate from the minds of the people their affection for it. It was also a gross and unwarrantable libel upon the privileges of the House. This not being a party question, nor a subject of discussion (for no man in that House, he was sure, would rise to defend the doctrines it inculcated)

* On the 20th of May 1796, the Trial of Mr. Reeves for the said Libel came on before lord Kenyon, and a special jury at Guildhall. The Attorney General stated the case on the part of the Crown, and left it to the jury to consider, whether the expressions alluded to were merely unadvised and erroneous; or whether, considering the whole context of the pamphlet, they were, as charged, libellous, and tending to villify the constitution. Mr. Plumer, in behalf of Mr. Reeves, admitted the fact of publication; and contended, from the whole tenor of the work, and the known character of Mr Reeves, and his ention, that no imputation of libel could be fixed on him. Lord Kenyon delivered an able charge to the jury, who retired, and remained out of court for upwards of an hour. When they returned, the foreman said, "My lord the jury are of opinion, that the pamphlet, which has been proved to have been written by John Reeves, esq. is a very improper publication: but being of opinion, that his motives were not such as laid in the information, find him-Not Guilty." This interesting Trial has never been published. The Editor is, however, informed, that a correct report of it, from the short hand notes of Mr. Gurney, will be preserved in Howell's State Trials.

thusiastic admiration of the British constitu

he hoped, for once at least, their lordships might come to an unanimous vote upon it. Much as he was averse to prosecutions in general for the publication of political opinions, he must nevertheless press for the condemnation of this book, inasmuch as, from the peculiar circumstances attending it, it formed an exception to the general rule. If the selection of a few passages only were brought forward, and those were not supported by the general context of the work, then he should say it was harsh to judge it in that mode. But if those passages were strengthened by the general tendency of the work; if the doctrines inculcated were uniformly sustained by the whole chain of reasoning which the author employed, and if, throughout, the intent of the author appeared evident and uniform, then they might be fairly quoted. If, also they were merely the speculative opinions of an insulated political writer, and were left to the common modes of circulation, much excuse might be admitted. If, on the other hand, the pamphlet throughout was an atrocious libel on the constitution; if it was one of the many libels circulated upon the same system; if it came from a person whose particular connexion with government, gave it weight and influence in the country; then it became matter of serious consideration indeed; particularly as it was understood to contain principles not discordant to the sentiments of a nobleman high in office, under whose influence they might have been disseminated. Under such circumstances as these, it became their lordships to interfere, and determine upon the libel. He should be well content to have the pamphlet read at length to their lordships, without offering a single comment: he was sure it would condemn itself; for the passages it contained were so strong, they were impossible to be mistaken; and their tendency so direct, that they would immediately carry a conviction of their meaning. He would not, however, so se verely tax the patience of their lordships; because, although it was a laboured and artful work, it was wretchedly dull. To save, therefore, their lordships the trouble, he would recapitulate the positions it maintained, and then read a few of the passages, by which they were endeavoured to be supported. 1. That the king alone makes laws. 2. That the other branches of the legislature are derived from the king. 3. That our liberties were grants

was done in the case of Sacheverel. If such should be the result, their lordships must perceive the dilemma to which they would be reduced, should they now come to a determination upon the subject. They would be the judges of a man, whom they had legislatively condemned, and the case would come before them already prejudged by their former resolution. Upon these grounds, he should move "That the House do now adjourn."

The Earl of Lauderdale said, that when he expected an opposition to his noble friend's motion, he expected it upon some such grounds; for he was certain that no man in that House would dare to stand up and defend the libellous and scandalous doctrines contained in the pamphlet. He was shocked at the libel, because, from the context, nothing could be more evident than that it was a premeditated and malignant insult offered to the government, as composed of King, Lords, and Commons. He was surprised to hear the noble secretary advance, that because the Commons had paid a regard to a breach of privilege, their lordships should be negligent of theirs. Should they, in a matter which concerned their own privileges, be bound by what was passing in the Commons? If they should come to the vote, it would be a very good argument in the other House why impeachment should not be the mode of prosecution; but it came with an ill grace from a noble lord in that House. It was making the privileges of one House dependent upon the other. He called on the noble secretary to consider what must be the opinion of the public, when they found a question like the present eluded by a side wind; when they saw that ministers were not so ready to come forward to prosecute excesses on one side as excesses on the other. It had been pretty loudly rumoured, that a number of these pamphlets had been sent to a person high in office, which at least argued, that the author supposed they were congenial to his sentiments, and would be sanctioned by administration.

Lord Hawkesbury was happy at having an opportunity of contradicting a most false and scandalous report, that a number of the pamphlets had been sent to him. This he positively denied: he declared, upon his honour, that he did not so much as know of the publication till it was no ticed in the House of Commons, and then he bought it out of curiosity to sce

He was sure

what the pamphlet was. noble lords must know, he would never countenance any doctrine which carried the least reflection on the government of King, Lords, and Commons. It might not be irrelevant to say something of Mr. Reeves, the supposed author. It was true, that he had been appointed law clerk in the department in which he (lord H.) had the honour of serving the crown; and he was appointed upon the best of recommendations, the recommendation of personal merit. He had written a History of the law of England, a work which evinced the powers of his mind, and was highly esteemed by every lawyer, both on the bench and at the bar. Of the present work, he would repeat, that he knew nothing; he was perfectly unbiassed and uninfluenced as to the contents; he should however, give no opinion whatever respecting them at that time; and for the reasons already urged by his noble friend, should support the motion of adjourn

ment.

Earl Spencer agreed, that in the House of Lords alone, the privileges of their lordships ought to be considered; and he said, he would be the last man to give up any of their principles; in the present instance however, he saw great impropriety in coming to a decision. With respect to the pamphlet he did not know of its existence till it was brought forward in the other House. He had not read it. It was necessary that time should be given their lordships to read and to consider the work. In what he had heard that night read from it, there was much unconstitutional and offensive matter; but passages might be taken from almost any work highly objectionable while they were detached, but which with the context, might be not only harmless but laudable.

The

Lord Mulgrave said, that the question before their lordships was, whether it was proper to go into an enquiry on the subject of the privileges of that House at that moment, a question which he for himself had determined in the negative. The question might come before their lordships judicially, in one form or other. Commons might resort to the high tribunal of impeachment as the best mode of obtaining the ends of justice, and he hoped the House would feel the force of that argument. They would in a great measure prejudge the case in that view, if they then came to any vote upon the contents of the publication.

The House divided on the question of adjournment: Contents, 31; Not-contents, 2.

Debate in the Commons on the Agree ment of the House for lessening the Consumption of Wheat.] Dec. 11. The Lord Mayor reported from the Committee on the High Price of Corn, that the Committee had come to the following resolution: "That it is the opinion of this Committee, that, in consequence of the high price and deficient supply of Wheat, it is expedient to adopt such measures as may be practicable for diminishing the consumption thereof, during the continuance of the present pressure, and for introducing the use of such articles as may conveniently be substituted in the place thereof." The Resolution was agreed to by the House nem. con. After which, Mr. Ryder moved, That it is expedient an Engagement should be entered into, by such Members of this House as may choose to sign the same to the following effect:-"To reduce the consumption of wheat in the families of the persons subscribing such Engagement, by at least one third of the usual quantity consumed in ordinary times. In order to effect this purpose either to limit to that extent the quantity of fine wheaten bread, consumed by each individual in such families,-Or, to consume only mixed bread, of which not more than two-thirds shall be made of wheat,-Or, only a proportional quantity of mixed bread, of which more than two-thirds is made of wheat,-Or, a proportional quantity of bread made of wheat alone, for which no more than five pounds of bran is excluded:-And, if it should be necessary, in order to effect the purpose of this Engagement, to prohibit the use of wheaten flour in pastry, and to diminish as much as possible the use thereof, in other articles than bread.-By one or more of these measures, or by any other which may be found equally effectual, and more expedient and practicable, in the respective situations of persons subscribing, to ensure to the utmost of their power the reduction above mentioned. This Engagement to continue in force until fourteen days after the next session of parliament, unless the average price of wheat shall, before that time, be reduced to an amount to be specified."

Mr. Bankes said, he regarded the labours of the committee with great respect, and he hoped the House would endeavour

to carry into execution the proposition which the report contained, being himself perfectly ready to do every thing in his power for that purpose. He wished the House, however, to recollect seriously whether the proposition would be in any considerable degree effectual, or adequate to the removal of the evil of which they had so much reason to complain. He believed that the gentlemen who would sign the proposed agreement would comply, as far as they were able, with the provisions of it; he nevertheless feared that would not be of an extent sufficient to meet the evil. An agreement to something of this nature had been entered into some time ago by many persons of the first distinction; it had not, however, removed the evil; and he was afraid that this measure would also be inadequate, and that in a few months the House would be obliged to go much farther. He should therefore suggest to the House the propriety of prohibiting at once the making of bread of wheat alone, and leaving the different compositions of bread to be of a mixture of wheat, rye, barley, potatoes, or Indian corn, as the case might require, and in certain proportions. If the House did not adopt it then, he was afraid they would soon be obliged to adopt it. He wished also the House to consider whether millers should be allowed to refine wheat flour beyond a certain standard. He apprehended that the danger of these regulations, in consequence of the hardships which they would introduce, were in a great degree chimerical; for he believed that the great mass of the people would not take it to be an injury if the higher classes set them the example of eating this bread. The higher classes could at present eat what bread they pleased, but the lower classes were so far from it that they could not subsist upon the wages for their labour, and a vast number of them were obliged to subsist upon charity. Therefore it appeared to him that the better way would be to come at once to a regulation by law, with regard to bread, that the rich might be compelled to eat the same bread as the poor. He did not say this in contradiction to the opinion of the committee who recommended the agreement now proposed; on the contrary, he approved of it as far as it went; but he was afraid it would not go far enough to remove the evil.

Mr. Secretary Dundas contended, that the principle of the measure was a good

found not only unpalatable, but unwholesome. If the fact were so, it was a most material object; because, from the very high price of all the other articles of life, many of the labouring poor were forced to live chiefly on bread. The only remedy he saw, was to adopt the bill which had been brought in, to increase the wages of labourers. Persons who were in more affluent situations would be enabled to use other articles, which would diminish the unwholesome effects of mixed bread, and bread of inferior quality; but men in that low state to which he had alluded, would not have it in their power to have recourse to any such means, unless the bill were passed for increasing their wages. With respect to the association proposed, he should object to it in its present form, not that he did not wish the object for which it was proposed to be obtained, but because he was afraid to set a bad precedent. If members were once called upon in that kind of way to subscribe to a particular association, it might be extended to others of a different nature. He had no objection to the House coming to a resolution to recommend such an association, and that every member in his individual capacity should recommend and enforce it by example, in the place where he lived; and he certainly would do it. He could not, however, for one moment consent to sign the association, as at present proposed.

one: it was, that while the rich were enjoying other luxuries, they should diminish their consumption of bread in order that more of that necessary article of food should be left for the use of the poor, who were not able to procure other articles of food. The hon. gentleman seemed to think that the association would be ineffectual, and one of his reasons was, that it was an unusual thing. That, in his opinion, was the principal recommendation of the measure. It was a question upon which the whole House would, he was convinced, be unanimous. He certainly thought, even if other measures should be necessary, that the House ought to adopt the present proposition. It would be recollected that a prejudice prevailed in the minds of the people against compulsatory measures. A strong dislike had existed against any other than the usual bread that dislike he was happy to state, was in many places removed, and the people in those places ate and relished bread not made wholly of wheat. Did gentlemen recollect that a compulsatory measure would render an act of parliament necessary? that that act could not be passed in less than four or five weeks, and that the delay of one week was the delay of a fifty-second part of the question? As soon as this association became known in the country, it would, he had no doubt, be universal; and he was decidedly of opinion, that the legislative example would be more efficacious than the legislative authority of parliament.

Mr. Curwen thought that the resolutions would fall short of the end proposed. He wished the people to be earnestly exhorted to use bread made of mixed materials, and to observe a strict economy in the use of flour.

Alderman Newnham wished something might be done to prevent the combinations of millers, which tended to raise the price of grain.

Mr. East strongly recommended members to be unanimous in supporting the present engagement.

Mr. Sheridan said, there was one point which would give him much satisfaction to hear, namely, that the proposed substitutes for the bread at present in use, would prove equally nutritive. He was afraid that was not the case. He had been informed that in many instances, in which they had attempted to make up bread of different mixtures, it had been [VOL. XXXII.]

Mr. Wilberforce said, he had no doubt but that there might be a species of bread, composed of certain mixtures, which would be equally nutritive with that at present in use, because it was proved by experience; it was well known, that in many parts of the country, the poorer sort of people used bread composed, in a great degree, if not entirely, of rye, which was not considered as unwholesome. With respect to the hon. gentleman's observation upon the propriety of raising the wages of labourers, he did not think it applied; because, if the present measure was adopted, they would have bread cheap in proportion to their means. The present occasion called for some effectual measure, and the one proposed appeared to him more likely to effect the object; it would also have the good effect of showing the people at large, that parliament lost no time in doing every thing in its power to relieve the distresses of the people.

Mr. Hussey said, that he should intro[2 Y]