right to give instructions to, and watch the motions of their constituents in parliament, had so sharpened the rancour and animosity of the people, that they flew out into the most audacious outrages. On the 5th of April, a complaint was made to the house of a breach of privilege, by several persons riotously breaking into the house; two of the persons guilty of the of fence, having been seized by the serjeant at arms, were ordered to be prosecuted, and immediately Mr. Foster moved a committee to enquire into the conduct of the magistrates of the city of Dublin, respecting an outrageous mob, which had broken into the house that day, and behaved riotously and abusively to several of the members, in which it was unanimously resolved, that an address should be presented to the lord-lieutenant, that he would be pleased to issue a proclamation, offering such reward as he should think proper, for the discovery of such persons, as had been concerned in tumultuously breaking into the house, or who had incited or encouraged others thereto; and on the same day a complaint was made of several paragraphs in a printed newspaper, intituled, "The Volunteer's Journal, or Irish Herald," published that morning; which being read, it was unanimously resolved, that the said paper was a daring, false, scandalous, and seditious libel on the proceedings of that house, tending to promote discontents among his majesty's subjects, to create groundless jealousies between that kingdom and Great Britain, to alienate the affections of the people from his majesty's government, and to excite an opposition to the laws of the land: and it was ordered, that the printer and publisher of the paper should forthwith attend the house.

On the same day Mr. Foster moved, that the printer and publisher of The Evening Chronicle, should also be brought to the bar of the house, the same seditious and libellous paragraphs having also appeared in that paper: and almost immediately after, he reported from the committee appointed to enquire into the conduct of the magistrates on that occasion. The house came to the following resolutions, viz.

"Resolved, That it appears to this committee, that the Right "Hon. Thomas Green, the lord mayor, received notice on Mon"day last, at nine o'clock, from Mr. Secretary Orde, that he "had information of an intended tumult in the city on that day; "and that the lord mayor had seen, on Sunday evening last, one "of the seditious hand-bills, which were dispersed throughout "the city on that day.

"Resolved, That it appears to this committee, that notwith"standing such information, the said lord mayor did not take any step to prevent the tumultuous rising of the people, which happened in this city on Monday last.

66

"Resolved, That it appears to this committee, that the said "lord mayor has not acted with that caution and prudence which "becomes the magistrate of this city."

Mr. Griffith said, he thought the lord mayor had acted with a becoming regard for the principles of the constitution. He had refrained from calling on a military force, which the constitution abhors, until compelled by the last extremity. In doing this, he was warranted by the prudent and constitutional advice of Mr. Speaker.

The Prime Serjeant said, that the lord mayor had entered upon his office at a time, when the city was in the most perfect state of tranquillity, and when its police was much more completely regulated, than ever it had been at any former period. In that state, his predecessor's great ability and unwearied application to the duties of his high office, had left the city; but hardly had Mr. Green entered upon his year of mayoralty, when he, who had been an active officer in the county of Wicklow, suffered every thing to run into disorder; the streets became impassable, riots became frequent, and every duty neglected. The man who could so far forget himself, as not to prevent such tumults as had arisen, he said, must be considered as little better than an accomplice, and therefore, though with infinite reluctance he should consent to any thing disgraceful to a magistrate, he thought Mr. Greene ought to be censured.

The Recorder and Alderman Warren supported the lord mayor, as did Mr. Hartley.

Mr. Hayes, of the county of Wicklow, said, that he had for many years known the lord mayor in that county, where he was esteemed a worthy public spirited man, and an active upright magistrate.

Upon a division there appeared, for censuring the lord mayor 35, and 17 against it.

Among other matters then pending, Sir John Blaquiere's paving bill had created discontent amongst a large part of the citizens of Dublin, and many of them had petitioned against

On the 7th of the month, Mr. Alderman Warren said, that such was the tenor of that bill, as induced the inhabitants to think it inexpedient, agreeable to the petitions presented on the preceding day; that to prevent the grievances arising therefrom, counsel ought to be heard, who were ready to attend at the bar.

Sir Boyle Roche dissented, not only in approving of the principles of the bill, but also thought it repugnant to the dig

3 Parl. Debates. Although the petition were presented, yet was it not accepted by the house, which rejection irritated the populace very much: even the presentation of it is not noticed in the Journals.

nity of that house, to pay attention to the solicitations of an unruly people. He wanted to know if it were not an insult to the house, to have petitions offered up by ringleaders of mobs. He then entered into a detail of his being surrounded by a riotous mob near the Tholsel, and challenged by them to know, if he were not an abettor of Sir John Blaquiere's bill; but as a guiltless man, that could never be intimidated, he declared he was; in consequence of which, he found hims. If ingulphed in a vortex, whence he could not extricate himself; and on demanding who they were, he received for answer, that they were the aggregate body. Thus he perceived, that if Napper Tandy thought proper to go into the remotest recesses of that city, and excite the inhabitants to acts of desperation, these meetings were to be legalized by the specious appellation of aggregate bodies.

The Recorder, in the strongest terms, reprobated the whole bill, as a system of unexampled tyranny and oppression. It placed, he said, in the hands of a set of low persons, (for commissioners acting for 150l. a year could be no other) a power to fine and torment with all the insolence of authority, every citizen of Dublin. It gave them power to raise taxes, and to borrow money; to summon whomsoever they thought proper before their tribunal: and upon neglect or disobedience, to impose a fine of 401. By this inquisitorial act, the father would be compelled to give evidence against his son, and the son against his father before that honourable board.

The principle of the bill, he said, was utterly repugnant to the law and constitution; and although the mover of the bill expressed his readiness to admit of any reasonable amendment to it, that could be suggested, he objected to the whole principle, as utterly incapable of being modelled to the public benefit.

In this licentious disposition of the public mind, Mr. Foster had been particularly marked as an object of obloquy* in the

This appears to have been the case from what Mr. Gardiner remarked in the debate. "The continuation of abuse, which is thrown upon one of the most virtuous characters in this house; a man, to whom the trade and agriculture of Ireland is more indebted, than to any other person living, demonstrates the necessity of the bill. No man can serve this country as things are now conducted, without becoming at one time or other the object of calumny. I have experienced this myself, though now I happen to be a favourite, possibly with as little reason, as my right honourable friend is the mark for obloquy.

"The licentiousness of the press is so great, that no man can rest one hour secure, that his character will not become the prey of some hireling defamer. A bill, therefore, to secure character from malignant attacks, is absolutely necessary. Nothing can be more moderate than the principle of that which is now before us. It allows every man to publish whatever he thinks proper,

newspapers: he therefore brought in a bill for restraining the liberty of the press, which was the only remaining subject of importance, that was agitated in parliament during the session. It was then opposed by some of the opposition.

On the 2d reading of the bill, Sir Edward Crofton said, he was astonished that a bill of such a dangerous tendency to the constitution, and so violent an attack on the liberty of the subject, should be agitated in such thin houses. He considered the press as the strongest bulwark of the constitution; and as he valued that constitution, would resist any measure of a tendency to lessen its securities. He then moved, that the second reading be postponed to the 1st of August.

Mr. Foster said, that it was highly unjust to suppose any injury intended to the liberty of the press by the bill in question; the manifest design of that bill was to preserve the liberty of the press, by curbing its licentiousness, which of late had grown to such a degree of enormity, as to become a national reproach. The bill was not intended as a restraint upon any man, to prevent his publishing his sentiments or opinions. If the bill should pass, every man would hereafter be at full liberty to publish whatever he should think proper, with this difference only, that if a jury of his countrymen should deem such publication a false, scandalous, or malicious libel, he would be answerable. After a very warm debate, the house divided, 22 for the adjournment, and 77 against it. On a subsequent day Mr. Brownlow supported the bill; and Mr. Grattan said, the necessity of the first clause of the bill, that for making known the real name of the printer or proprietor of every newspaper, was apparent, and if carried with unanimity, would produce the most salutary consequence. There was one paper, said he, that teemed with exhortations and incitements to assassination, which daily published such atrocious matter, as would not be suffered in any other country existing. Parliament was called upon to check such proceedings, and to guard the liberty of the press from the injury it might receive, through the scandalous and licentious conduct of the newspapers. He had no idea of wounding the liberty of the press; but if it were suffered to go on in the way it then did, one of two things would ensue; it would either excite the unthinking to acts of desperation, or it would itself fall into utter contempt, after having disgraced the nation. To prevent either of which consequences, he thought parliament called upon to interfere consonant to the spirit of the constitution, not by imposing any new penalty, nor by compelling printers to have

only making him responsible for what he does publish. This is simply the principle of the bill; if there be any defect in its clauses, that may be remedied by going into a committee." 3 Parl. Debates, p. 162.

their publications licensed, but merely to oblige them to put their names to their newspapers.

The House of Commons had ordered their Serjeant at Arms to take the publishers and printers of the offensive newspapers out of the custody of the civil power, and commit them over to military escorts, under which they were more cruelly and severely treated, than they could have been by the civil power. Against these illegal stretches of power, some of the warmest patriots vehemently exclaimed. Although the bulk of the house were against them, the agitation of the question upon the unwarrantable exercise of a rigour so manifestly beyond the law, produced in that ferment* of the public mind the very worst of consequences.

General Luttrell, who was at no time a popular favourite, may by some be suspected of having exaggerated the truth, when on the 12th of April, he said in the house, no country was ever disgraced in the manner Ireland had lately been; nothing less than essays in praise of murder, investigating the different means, by which it might be perpetrated, and giving preference to the poignard as the most certain and least dangerous to the assassin. There was no place in the world where excitements to murder would be permitted; and if the mobs there committed murders, they must be attributed to the newsprinters, who, not content with assassinating characters, had proceeded to the shedding of blood. The bill before them, would, he hoped, remedy that enormity, and also another, which they had lately imported from London, that is, the raising contributions by defaming, or threatening to defame innocent persons. He hoped a newspaper would no longer be able to say, give me so much money, or your character shall be destroyed by calumny. This is like the means used to raise contributions by a set of infamous miscreants in EngLand, against whose practices the legislature of that country was compelled to exert itself; they used to threaten persons, that if not paid for silence, they would accuse thein of crimes, which to mention, shocks our nature: how much better, he asked, have been the practices of some news-printers here?

Mr. Gardiner, however, who was at that time the prime favourite of the people, as he was the avowed advocate of the distressed manufacturers, thus confirmed the General's statement:...." I have been in some degree, the inno"cent cause of the disturbances that have prevailed of late; but I trust the "house will do me the justice to recollect, that I did declare in November "last, upon the very first appearance of them, that if the people would not de"sist from all violence, and demean themselves in a peaceable manner, I "would abandon the cause, which I had undertaken. And could I have "foreseen the tumults that have happened, I certainly would have been as "good as my word; nor will I in future ever undertake the smallest thing for "the relief of the manufacturers, if the people continue to act so improperly as of late they have done; and I hope the gentlemen who divided with me "upon the question of protecting duties, will make the same determination.

As to the bill now before us, the first clause is on all hands admitted; "and the necessity of the last, (by which the hawker of any unstamped, inflammatory, or libellous paper, may be compelled to prove from whom he "received it,, is obvious. It was by the inflammatory hand-bill lately dis"persed, that all this tumult has been excited, as I am well assured by the "working people themselves, who declared, that they had no idea of stirring "till they saw it.

"I must say once more, that had I foreseen what was to happen, I never "would have undertaken the cause of the manufacturers; and I feel myself extremely hurt at the improper conduct of the working people: I lament it