LONDON. 
provifions of the aft, and dwelt upon the evils which 
might refult, and had actually refulted, from it. Some of 
the cafes Hated were carious exemplifications of the de- 
teflable artifices praCtileu in that tra^je of informing, 
which is too much encouraged by the impofition of heavy 
penalties, of which a moiety goes to the informer. In 
one inftance, perfons had gone about to different printers 
to procure an impreffion of title-pages to an Elzevir edi¬ 
tion of Cicero’s Works j.many copies of which were de¬ 
fective in that particular 5 and, as the printer could not 
confidently put his own name inftead of Elzevir’s, pe¬ 
nalties were incurred to a valt amount. In another, a 
printer who was employed to print propofals fora military 
work had, in fpecifying his place of abode, inadvertently 
omitted the word London, after that of Paternofter-row ; 
and he was fummoned to Guildhall to fliow caufe why he 
fhould not be fined ao,oool. for this omifiion. In tliele 
and other cafes, the magiftrates had indeed ventured to 
difpenfe with the injunctions of the hCt; but it would be 
obvioufly better to give them a difcretionary power by 
law, or grant to the parties aggrieved a right to appeal to 
the quarter-fefiions. He concluded with moving to bring 
in the announced bill, in which he was feconded by ford 
Folkeftone ; and, after a few farther obfervations on the 
fubjeCt, leave was granted. 
The committal of the bill was moved for on April 5th, 
when the attorney-general objected to a claufe in it, by 
which the magiftrate was confined to the levying of one 
penalty only for every publication, however numerous the 
copies; afierting that, if this were to pafs, the end of the 
law would be entirely defeated, fince no man wifhing to 
circulate a mifchievous paper would be deterred by inch 
a confideration.—Mr. Martin, in reply, obferved, that all 
the penalties to which printers had been liable before the 
pafiing of the aCh in queflion would be Hill in force after 
this propofed amendment. He recalled to the recollection 
of the houfe the circumftance under which the aCt had 
been originally framed, which was that of the exiftence 
of feditious focieties who circulated a vafl number of pa¬ 
pers, of which it was fcarcely poffible to difcover the prin¬ 
ters. Such focieties no longer exifted ; the exigence 
therefore being at an end, it was reafonabie that the bill 
fhould be repealed, or at leafi modified. The attorney- 
general himfelf, he believed, had found it necefiary to 
bring in a bill to indemnify fome who had violated it ; 
and was it fitting that fuch a bill fhould be left (landing 
on the Hatute-books in terrorem ? His wifh u>as not to inno¬ 
vate, but to reltore the law to what it was before, with the 
exception of the fingle penalty of aol. for a whole im- 
prefiion, if without the printer’s name.—After fome fur¬ 
ther difcufiion, the attorney-general, “ in order to fliow how 
willing he was to go along with his honourable and learned 
friend as far as he could,” propofed that the magiftrate 
fhould in no cafe have the power of impofing more than 
twenty-five penalties of aol. or 500I. It was next agreed 
that the magiftrate fhould be allowed to mitigate the fine 
to 5I. that an appeal to the quarter-fefiions might be en¬ 
tered within twenty days from the time of conviction ; 
and that fix days notice fhould be given to the profecutor. 
—The bill thus modified was reported, and afterwards 
pafied into a law. 
On the 21 ft of March, lord A. Hamilton introduced a 
motion in the houie of commons, relative to the (late of 
the prefs in India. He began with faying, that his object 
was not to find fault with the regulations to which his mo¬ 
tion referred, but merely that an opportunity might be af¬ 
forded of knowing what were the laws in exiftence upon 
this fubjeft, and alfo upon what authority they had been 
eltabiifhed. It might be urged, that, though there might 
be no pofitive law, yet long practice might be f'ulEcient 
to eftaMifh an ufage, and give it the efficacy of law. He 
could not, however, admit that any fuch ufage could juf- 
tify fuch regulations of the prefs as appeared now to exift 
in India, and had never received the fanCtion of that 
houfe. By thofe, as he underltood, 110 newlpaper could 
<24 7 
be publifhed in India which had not previoufly received 
the fanCtion of government, on the penalty of immediate 
embarkation for Europe. They alfo contained rules for 
the guidance of the fecretary of the government in re- 
vifing newfpapers. He was to prevent all obfervations 
refpeCting the public revenues and finances of the coun¬ 
try—all obfervations refpeCting the embarkations on-board 
fhips, of ltores or expeditions, and their deltination, whe¬ 
ther they belonged to the company or to Europe—all Hate- 
ments of the probability of war or peace between the 
company and the native powers—all obfervations calcu¬ 
lated to convey information to the enemy ; and the repub¬ 
lication of paragraphs from the European papers which 
might be likely to excite diffatisfaCtion ordifcontent in the 
company’s territories. If the prefs was to be prevented 
from publifliing any thing on all thefe heads, he was at 
a lofs to know what fubjeCt was left open to it. With 
refpecl to-the adminiftration of juflice at Madras, it was 
confidered as pure; yet the courts appeared to be afhamed 
of their proceedings, fince they would not fuffer them 
to be publifhed. And he then Hated, that two grand ju¬ 
rors, and three petty jurymen, had been fent away from 
Madras for their cpnduCt in thefe courts. He concluded 
by moving “for copies of all orders, regulations, rules, 
and directions, promulgated in India fince the year 1797, 
regarding the reHraint of the prefs at the three prefiden- 
cies of Bengal, Madras, and Bombay, whether aCted upon 
by the government there, or fent out by the court of di¬ 
rectors, or the board of controul.” 
Mr. Dundas rofe to Hate his reafons for oppofing the 
motion of the noble lord, not only in its prefent form, 
but in any polfible fhape in which it could be framed, 
lip muH fay that a wilder fcheme never entered into the 
imagination of man than that of regulating the Indian 
prefs fimilarly to the Englifh. There could be but two 
defcriptions of perfons in India; thofe who went to that 
country with the licenfe of the company, and thofe who 
lived in its aCtual fervice ; and there could be no doubt what¬ 
ever that the company had a right to lay any regulation it 
pieafed on thofe who ciiofe to live under its power. 
Sir J. Newport could not concur in the opinions ad¬ 
vanced, that the fervants of the company were bound to 
abide by all the regulations of the company, or elfe re¬ 
turn to England, ^he company might make regulations 
highly unjufi and opprefiive ; and it was the duty of that 
houfe to take care that they did not. 
Lord Folkeftone did not call in queHion the right of 
the EaH-India company to make rules for their own ter¬ 
ritory; but that was no reafon why the houfe fhould be 
kept in ignorance what thefe rules were. It was not only 
proper, but highly expedient, that we fhould know to 
what our feliow-fubjeCts in India were fubjected. 
Sir Thomas Turton lpoke in a Hrain of fevere farcafm 
on the principles of our government in India. He fully 
agreed that fo delightful a plant as the liberty of the 
prefs could never fiourifh in the Herile foil of defpotiim. 
<! Why (faid he) fhould you give Indians the advantage 
of knowledge? You would only thereby be giving them 
the means of detecting your own injultice. You have 
ranfacked their country, you have defpoiled its people, you 
have murdered their princes ; and of courfe, for your 
own protection, you mutt keep them deluded, deceived, 
and ignorant. You might as well talk of the iiberty of the 
prefs in Morocco and Algiers, as under your government 
in India. According to the right honourable gentleman, 
the people of India are confidered as nothing. If fuch 
is your principle, to keep them ignorant is as much your 
policy, as to keep them .enflaved has been your crime.” 
Mr. Wallace oppol'ed the motion, faying, that the liberty 
of the prefs was for the prefervation of freedom, and that 
there was no freedom in India to preserve. 
Mr. C. Grant obferved, that we did not cari'y defpotifm 
to India, but found it there; and lie thought the iubjctt 
under difcufiion highly dangerous. 
The Chancellor of the Exchequer objected to the pro¬ 
duction 
