Commons Sitting of 15 December 1819

EMPLOYMENT OF THE POOR—MR. SALISBURY'S PETITION.
Mr. Bootle Wilbrahamsaid, he held in his hand a Petition from a Mr. William Salisbury, the author of a plan for employing to advan-
1166
tage the labouring poor. The plan had been carried into execution in the city of London, under the authority of the magistrates, and had been found to answer so well, that he was convinced great benefit might be derived from its more general adoption, and he was desirous of obtaining the report of a committee of the House on the subject. The object of the petitioner was not to obtain any pecuniary compensation, but to have the attention of parishes drawn towards it, as he conceived that if his plan was carried into execution, it might diminish considerably the expense of the maintenance of the poor, by enabling parishes to employ them to advantage.
The Petition was then brought up, and read. On the motion that it do he on the table,
Lord Francis Osborneput a question to Mr. S. Bourne, with a view to learn, whether he intended to move for the revival of the committee on the poor laws?
Mr. S. Bourneintimated, that he intended to move the re-appointment of the committee.
Mr. Alderman Woodsaid, he conceived it his duty to state that the petitioner's plan had been carried into execution in the House of Correction of the city of London on a small scale, and had been found of considerable advantage, in affording employment to persons capable of labouring. It gave employment to females as well as males. As far as the experiment had been tried, it had met with the approbation of the magistrates of London. As the object of this plan was the employment of the poor, and as an hon. baronet (sir W. de Crespigny) had given notice of a motion, which stood for tomorrow, for the appointment of a committee to take into consideration the plan of Mr. Owen, perhaps it might be advisable that Mr. Salisbury's plan should be referred to the same committee.
Mr. B. Wilbrahamobserved that the object of Mr. Salisbury was the employment of parish poor, whereas the plan of Mr. Owen went to the general employment of the poor in the agricultural districts. Mr. Salisbury's plan had already been carried into effect to a certain extent.
Sir W. De Crespignyobserved, that, Mr. Owen's plan was certainly on a more large scale, and went to the general employment of the poor in spade husbandry. Mr. Owen conceived that the distress of

1167
labouring classes was occasioned by the extent to which mechanical improvement had been carried. He hoped the hon. member would postpone his motion for the appointment of a committee to consider Mr. Salisbury's plan, if he had such an object in view, till his motion for tomorrow was disposed of.
Mr. Mellishsaid, that Mr. Salisbury's plan might be of advantage in particular instances; but he disapproved of all plans of employing the people attended with great loss to the nation at large.
Mr. S. Bournesaid, that the plan of Mr. Salisbury, having for its object the advantageous employment of parish poor, might be submitted to the committee on the poor laws.
The motion for the petition lying on the table was withdrawn with the consent of the House; after which, Mr. B. Wilbraham moved, that it be referred to a committee.
Mr. Huskissonthought it very possible the House might not think fit to appoint a committee to enter on so extensive a plan as Mr. Owen's; but the petition before the House related, to a specific plan of employment for parish poor, and it was of great consequence, at the present moment, to inquire whether it could or could not be realised. Every gentleman acquainted at all with Mr. Owen's plan, knew that it embraced far more extensive plans than the employment of the poor.
Sir W. De Crespignysaid, that Mr. Owen had no wish whatever of deriving any emolument from his plan. He had no other object but to benefit mankind in general, and this country in particular.
Mr. J. Smithwas happy that any plan for the employment of the poor was in the hands of the member for Dover: it could not be in better hands.
Sir C. Burrellwished to caution the House against allowing 'themselves to be run away with by their feelings of humanity. It had been said in recommendation of the spade husbandry, that the produce from it was the double of that of the plough. A case on which great stress had been laid, was that of a tenant of the hon. member for Newcastle, who was said to have obtained a produce by the spade, of 17½ quarters of wheat per acre. On inquiry into the subject, he learned from the tenant himself, that the produce had only been 74 quarters per acre.
Mr. Broughamwas extremely averse
1168
to the giving a sanction to any visionary scheme of general employment of the poor. If any practicable plan were proposed for the bettor employment of the poor, lying within a narrow compass, that might be a fit subject for the examination of a committee. But the idea of superseding the plough husbandry by the spade throughout the whole country, was altogether out of the question.
Mr. Lytteltonsuggested the propriety of having the petition printed, that members might have an opportunity of considering it before the motion for a committee was submitted to the House.
Mr. B. Wilbrahamhad no objection to accede to this suggestion.
Mr. Wilberforcethought the House ought to be very cautious how they gave countenance to the mistaken notions which prevailed among many people at present, with respect to extensive plans for the employment of the people. It might, however, be possible to provide employment in public works for great numbers of the working classes. The disproportion between the demand for labour and the number of labourers, would thus be lessened, by which wages would materially rise.
Mr. B. Wilbrahamhaving withdrawn his motion, the petition was afterwards ordered to be on the table and to be printed.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS.
Lord Althorpsaid, in rising to move for leave to bring in a bill for the relief of Insolvent Debtors., he wished to explain some particular circumstances in which it differed from the bill passed by the House last session. The House would recollect, that the bill of last session subjected the debtor to a previous, examination of his affairs before coming into court, and that it gave the creditor the power of compelling the debtor to come forward and surrender his property. In consequence of the opposition which that, bill met with in another House, the old Insolvent act was renewed till April next. His majesty's ministers had not only removed the late commissioner of the insolvent court, but they had removed every clerk, and in doing so, he was convinced they had acted most property Whatever was the cause, what had passed had taken away all confidence in that court, and a complete change was absolutely necessary As far as he could learn, the effect of the change had been

1169
every thing that could be wished. The present commissioner, as far as the provisions of the law would admit of it, had done every thing that persons engaged in trade could wish. In the bill of last session, he had assumed, that it was impossible for one commissioner to do justice between all parties; but from what had been done by the present commissioner, he thought one commissioner would be sufficient. He understood the bill was lost in another place, principally on account of the power which it gave creditors to compel debtors to take advantage of the act, and to sell their real property. It appeared to him, that the real property of debtors ought to be subject to the payment of their debts, and that a provision to that purpose ought to be adopted. But as such a provision might be fatal to the success of the bill, he now proposed that the real property of the debtor, instead of being sold for the benefit of the creditor, should only be sequestrated for their benefit, the estate itself not being taken from the debtor. His object was to have the bill printed before the recess, that gentlemen might have time to consider it during the recess. The present act expired on the 23rd of April, and he wished to bring this bill before the House soon after the recess, as it was important that a measure of so much importance should have due consideration. He thought it absolutely necessary that a previous examination into the affairs of the insolvent should take place, and that the creditor should have the power of compelling the insolvent to take the benefit of the act, and unless he carried these two points he should consider it his duty to oppose any bill for the relief of insolvent debtors. He concluded with moving for leave to bring in a bill for the relief of insolvent debtors.—Leave given.

BLASPHEMOUS LIBEL BILL—PETITION OF THE BOOKSELLERS AGAINST IT.
Mr. J. Smithsaid, he had a petition to present, to which he took the liberty of requesting the most serious attention of the House, as the subject of it was of the greatest importance, and it was signed by some of the most respectable persons in this metropolis. It was a petition signed by 52 booksellers and printers of this metropolis, complaining of that provision in the bill now in progress through the House, for the punishment of blasphemous and seditious libels, by which a second
1170
conviction was punishable with banishment, and transportation for seven years. Many most respectable men were in the occupation and trade of bookselling, and invested large capitals in it. From their education and attainments, they were qualified, in point of fact, for the best society in this country; and they were in a state of the greatest distress and alarm on account of this bill. It was well known that the greatest uncertainty prevailed with respect to what was or was not a libel. That was a libel which was pronounced to be so by a jury. Those gentlemen were as desirous as any persons could be that the extensive circulation of blasphemous libels should be prevented as far as possible; but they humbly conceived that the punishment of transportation, which the law applied only to felons and persons convicted of the greatest crimes, and was, therefore, not analogous to the offence in question, was not called for to ensure that object, and would have the effect of preventing respectable persons from embarking their property in the trade of bookselling. Among the petitioners were individuals possessed of enormous capital; some of them had hundreds of thousands of pounds passing through their hands every year. Was it possible that men would embark capital in a trade which they could not carry on with security, if unfortunately they were once convicted of a libel, for the second offence sent them to New South Wales? Among the gentlemen who had subscribed this petition, many would abandon the trade were this bill to pass. They hoped that some other mode of punishment would be substituted to this severe one. Were this bill to pass as it was, it would be in the power of any discontented person, any person employed in a shop who had a dispute with his master, to put this individual in danger.
Mr. Bernalsaid, the literature of the country was inseparably connected with its prosperity, and any restraints on literature could not fail to be attended with the most ruinous effects. Speaking from his own personal knowledge, he could say, many individuals of great wealth and intelligence were engaged in the book trade in London. He hoped the House would pay serious attention to the petition. He hoped the noble lord and his colleagues would think it due to the intelligence and general loyalty of the petitioners, to pay some attention to the petition.
The Petition was brought up and read. It was to the following effect:
"That we have observed with concern the increased and extensive circulation of certain seditious and blasphemous libels which have of late been printed and published, and are anxious that such remedy may be provided as to the wisdom of parliament shall seem fit; but that we nevertheless view with great apprehension and alarm the provisions of a bill now under the consideration of the House of Commons, entitled "An Act for the more effectual Prevention and Punishment of Blasphemous and Seditious labels," so far as it is proposed that it should be thereby enacted, that if any person shall, after the passing of that act, be legally convicted of having composed, printed, or published, any blasphemous libel, or any such seditious libel as therein mentioned, and shall, after being so convicted, offend a second time, and be thereof legally convicted, such person may, on a second conviction, be adjudged, at the discretion of the court, either to suffer such punishment as may now by law be indicted in cases of high misdemeanors, or to be banished from the united kingdom and all other parts of his majesty's dominions, for such term as the court, in which such conviction shall take place, shall order, or to be transported to such place as shall be appointed by his majesty for the transportation of offenders for any term not exceeding years; and that it should be farther enacted, that if any offender who shall be so ordered by any such court as aforesaid, to be banished or transported in manner as aforesaid, shall be afterwards at large within any part of the united kingdom, or any other part of his majesty's dominions, without some lawful cause, before the expiration of the term for which such offender shall have been so ordered to be banished or transported as aforesaid, every such offender being so at large as aforesaid, being thereof lawfully convicted, shall suffer death as in cases of felony without benefit of clergy,
"That the punishment of transportation and of death are punishments applicable only to felonies and offences so specific and certain in their nature, as to exclude the commission there of through, ignorance or inadvertence, and necessarily to include the evil intent in the felonious or illegal act. But that the offence of libel is not specific and certain, and is incapable of being rendered previously certain by any
1172
specific definition; and that libels may be, and frequently are, published by persons having no community of intention with the authors or composers thereof; and being, from the nature of their business, necessarily unacquainted with the contents or probable effects of the same,
"That questions of libel, both in law and fact, are determined by a jury on the prosecution thereof, and that the verdict of the jury upon a trial, is the sole criterion of judgment, as to the legal or illegal nature and effect of a publication; and that such, verdicts, depending upon individual opinion, are always uncertain and frequently contradictory, in so far, that the authors and composers and first publishers of political and other publications have, in some instances, been acquitted upon prosecutions for libel; and subsequent venders, no way concerned in the printing or first publishing thereof, have been convicted by different juries for the publication of the same libels, and punished upon such conviction by fine and imprisonment.
"That a verdict of acquittal, on a prosecution for libel, whereby the publication complained of is declared in the opinion of the jury to be obnoxious, does not legitimate the continued sale thereof, but that the same defendant is subject to prosecution for each subsequent act of publication of the same work, and in doubtful cases, is liable to probable eventual conviction and punishment; and that a prosecution for libel, even in cases of acquittal, does therefore generally operate to restrain the continued circulation of the offensive work, and in some cases to suppress the same altogether.
"That as general booksellers and publishers, we are more especially affected by the proposed act, and that the more extensive and respectable the trade carried on is, the more probable it becomes that we may, innocently and with good intentions, fall under the censure and punishment of the proposed law
"That instances are not wanting in which booksellers have been convicted, and have suffered punishment, for the sale of libellous works by servants without their privity, and, it may be, every contrary to their command; and that as no circumspection can guard against the malice of an offended, or the negligence of a careless servant we shall be liable to incur the ultimate penalty of the proposed law for acts of which we are not even

1173
cognizant, and against which prudence would be unavailing.
"That from the nature of our trade, we are daily employed to execute orders from customers as intermediate hands, in the distribution of new works, of the contents and nature where of we are unavoidably ignorant, and that for each copy of such works so distributed by as, we are now responsible upon an indictment or information, and are liable, not with standing the perfect integrity of our intentions, to punishment, as in case of a misdemeanor; and that if the proposed bill should pass into a law, we may in such cases become liable to transportation for seven years, and to the punishment of death in case of return from transportation.
"That a very great number of historical, political, and religious works, are written and composed and published in London at stated periods, and that most of such works are of temporary and immediate public interest and that such works issue from the press, and pass through the hands of several different booksellers, and many thousands thereof are delivered to the readers thereof within a very few hours after their first publication, and that a previous perusal or consideration of such works, by such venders of the same as are not the original or first publishers of the same, is impracticable.
"That many standard works upon historical, philosophical, and political subjects, which have now obtained a classical reputation, and are daily sold by respectable booksellers, under the licence of a long prescription, may be reasonably considered to be liable to question as libellous by analogy to more recent works which have been subjected to persecution, and that such standard works therefore do not present any criterion for judgment as to the effect of new publications—but may themselves be the subject of future prosecution, and may subject the venders thereof to the punishments proposed by the said bill.
"That the ignominy of a punishment which it is proposed to make common to authors, printers, booksellers, and felons, while it operates to deter learned and respectable writers of the most virtuous principles, from treating on political or religious subjects at all will especially prevent them from engaging in the composition of reviews, magazines, and other vehicles of periodical discussion to the great and permanent detriment; of learn-
1174
ing; and will seriously injure the trade of booksellers and printers, in which they have large capitals embarked especially in that extensive branch which embraces the most respectable periodical works in the country; and will tend to throw them into the hands of reckless and desperate men.
"That although we have the greatest confidence in the wisdom and integrity of the present judges of his majesty's courts of law, yet that the power to expatriate and transport for a crime not specific; but indefinite in its nature, which exposes ignorance and inadvertence, equally with, intentional guilt, is of too extensive and dangerous a nature to be confided to any authority whatever, to be exercised at discretion; and that, in relation to a crime whose turpitude is heightened or diminished by the political aspect of the times, such a power, especially if rendered permanent, might become the engine of great injustice and oppression, against which no character, however perfect, would be a protection.
That from the circumstances stated, our trade and means of living, if not totally destroyed by the intended bill, would be carried on under a state of hazard and insecurity, productive of constant mental inquietude, and destructive of the comfort of ourselves and our families.—They therefore pray that the bill may not in its present state pass into a law."
The Petition having been read,
Lord Castlereagh Lord Castlereagh, with reference to the prayer of this petition said, he wished to state, that when they went into a committee on the bill now on the table, for the punishment of blasphemous and seditious libels, it was intention to propose an alteration in it, which would in a great measures meet the views of the petitioners; He was sure there was not a more respectable class of men in the country than the booksellers of London. He did not mean to press the punishment of transportation It was absolutely necessary that the country should be protected against the offence of publishing treasonable or blasphemous libels by a punishment adequate to that object, but as the punishment of transportation had been particularly objected to, from its having been hitherto assigned to felons, and as he thought the interests of the country might be sufficiently protected by banishment, at the discretion of the court, he should Introduce an alteration to that effect. The in-

1175
dividual excluded from the country, would not be liable to transportation, unless he returned from his banishment without the consent of the Crown. This security, he trusted, would be found effectual, as transportation was one of the alternatives on a return from banishment. They would thus still adhere to the principle of the bill, as far as related to the second offence.
Mr. M. A. Taylorsaid, though some part of the obnoxious matter of the bill was removed by the removal of the punishment of transportation, yet till it could be shown that the bill was absolutely necessary, he for one, should oppose it. It was a measure which should be met, in the first instance, as introducing an offence not known to the law of England. Even if the present law were found insufficient for the suppression of those blasphemous and seditious libels, which it was the wish of every man to put down, yet it remained for the noble lord to prove the pressing necessity for introducing this with the other bills which he had brought forward. When such a change in the law was to be made, why not announce it, and allow time for the consideration of it? Why, but because he believed there would be but one voice in England upon the subject. He could conceive the propriety of introducing bills respecting meetings, Upon the spur of the occasion, and if they had been limited to the time of exigency, there were those in the House, perhaps, who would not have made much objection to them. But the objection now was, that in three weeks we were actually to change the constitution of the country. Though the noble lord had made a concession by taking away the punishment of banishment, with a view to obviate the opposition of some, he deemed it his duty to state that the concession did not satisfy him.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, that he did not mention the alteration he had made in the idea that argument would be taken away, but because he deemed it right to apprise the House of the alteration, he intended to propose.
Ordered to lie on the table.

NEWSPAPER STAMP DUTIES BILL
Lord Castlereaghrose to move the second reading of this bill, and observed, that in so doing, he might satisfy the object of the right hon. gentleman opposite, as well as his own, and the general convenience of the House. The bill might then be
1176
committed to-morrow and reprinted, so as to be in the hands of members on Friday next. On the question of the third reading the general principle of the bill might be discussed, and he apprehended that this course of proceeding would be found the most advisable which could, under the present circumstances, be adopted. The alterations which it was in contemplation to propose he would now endeavour shortly to explain. The first branch of the measure was that which rendered it applicable to all publications sold under a certain price and treating of political matters. There were two classes of works which he did not think it necessary to include in this description; the one consisted of occasional publications of a local nature, and involving only local interests; the other respected periodical works, published at intervals considerably distant from each other, and which were of considerable importance, both as they related to the diffusion of knowledge and the support of religion and morality. It did not appear to him that it would be proper to saddle such publications with the new duty of four-pence upon each separate number. The House would readily see that the great object of this measure was to apply only to works which were the channels of mischief, and the means by which sedition and blasphemy were propagated through the country. It was intended, therefore, to confine its provisions to periodical works published in succession within the term of 26 days, so as in fact to exempt all monthly and other publications not coming forth within that time. Still, in order to guard against the means of obvious invasions, it might be necessary that the periods of publication should be required to be uniform, and that the application of stamp-duties to all works conveying intelligences should not be avoided. The second branch of this bill referred to the subject of securities to be given by persons publishing facts or intelligence of a particular kind. It was not intended to press inconveniently on newspapers, the principle end in view being to put a responsibility on all persons who sent forth works of a particular description to the public. He certainly must adhere to the principle of requiring security from, the publishers of all papers or pamphlets of less than two sheets, and sold under the price of 6d., and issued within the period to which he had alluded. At the same time he wished it to be un-

1177
derstood, that the new stamp duties should only be coextensive with periodical publications. The security required as the bill was now framed was 500 l. generally from the printer; it being at his discretion to produce it himself, or obtain it from three or four other persons. It had been stated to him that this sum was too large, and might be more easily raised or answered for in some places than in others. The times, however, in which we lived, seemed to him to require, that persons exercising the power of the press should be men of some respectability and property. But as it was represented that this sum of 500 l might press too heavily on persons of a moderate capital, or in distant places, he would propose to reduce the sum to 300 l. in London and it vicinity, and to 200 l. in the provincial towns. He was aware that it might be urged that there were persons not possessed of any capital, who were still anxious to address the public on political questions. Cases of individual hardship might certainly arise; but at a time like the present, it appeared to him necessary that the law should be made effectual for its purpose. An argument might certainly be raised as to the influence of pamphlet writing, upon the morals and interests of the community. Into that argument he would not now diverge. It affected entirely the general principle; and all that he now meant was to give a general description of the amendments or modifications which he was ready to support.
Mr. Tierney feltmuch obliged to the noble lord for the explanation which he had just given. Without abandoning his objections to the principle of this measure, he was willing to close with the noble lord's proposition as to arrangement.
Mr. Broughamwished that the ground upon which he assented to the second reading should be distinctly understood: the explanations which had been given did not at all remove his general objection to the measure; but he certainly could perceive no advantage which could be derived from discussing it until it was printed with its new alterations. After all that had been said, he still remained of opinion that the introduction of a new punishment into our law was the most dangerous innovation which had been attempted in his time. To another principle he must also decidedly object. It was that which held forth that the possession of a certain fortune was necessary before any man should
1178
discuss political questions through the press.
The bill was then read a second time.

MISDEMEANORS BILL.
Lord Castlereagh Lord Castlereagh, referring to the order of the day for the second reading of the bill regarding the right of traversing on indictments or informations for misdemeanors, stated, that if no objection was entertained, he should propose that it be now read a second time.
Mr. Tierneyobserved, that it must be within the recollection of the House, that in his former allusions to this measure, he had spoken in ignorance of its provisions. As he was now informed upon that point, he felt his principal objection removed.—A noble friend of his had, in another place, effected an alteration which would be more beneficial to the interests of society than any enactment for a long period. The power of prosecuting on the part of the Crown was at length defined and limited. He made these remarks with the more satisfaction, because the noble lord to whom he had alluded (lord Holland) was a Whig of the first distinction.
Mr. Broughamprofessed himself to be also desirous of acknowledging the merits of the noble lord to whom allusion had been made, and he felt it to be the more necessary on this occasion, because the credit of those modifications which the bill had undergone had been, he would not say taken by, but given to, another noble lord, who certainly had never shown himself an advocate for Whig principles; and it might also be remarked, that a similar provision had been submitted by his noble friend five years ago, and rejected by the other House.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, he was glad that the merits of the bill were acknowledged: whether they were to be ascribed to one noble lord, or to another, he would not then inquire.
The bill was then read a second time.

SEIZURE OF ARMS BILL.
The report of this bill was brought up. On the motion that it be now read,
Mr. Powlettsaid, that though he acknowledged the necessity of the application of the bill to the north of Durham, there was no necessity for it in the south and western parts; He hoped the noble lord would consent to exempt them.—There was an example for this, as the west riding of Yorkshire was the only part of that county subjected to the bill.
Lord Castlereaghthought it was necessary to take the districts which were or had been disturbed, in a large and liberal sense. Though the Bill was an encroachment on constitutional right, it was necessary for security's sake, not only to cover the part where evil prevailed, but so much of the sound part as would prevent the disease from spreading. Though it was unpleasant to resist such appeals from gentlemen, he thought the purpose of the bill could not be answered if counties were divided into districts.
Mr. Lambtonsaid, he was extremely obliged to his hon. colleague for taking credit for the loyalty of the south-western part of Durham, in which he (Mr. Powlett) resided, at the expence of the northern parts. Now, he would say, that the northern part was equally free from disaffection. The western part just as much merited to be subject to this bill as the northern, that was to say, not at all. He moved, as an amendment, that the report be read, on this day six months.
Mr. J. Martinsupported the amendmet, on the ground of the clause in the bill allowing a search by night.
Mr. Ommaneybegged to call the attention of the House to the fact, that the bill would take a different character, if the hours for searching houses were limited, according to the suggestion he had formerly offered. He hoped a clause to that effect would still be adopted, and in that hope he should vote for the amendment.
The House divided; For the Amendment, 38; Against it, 94: Majority, 56.—The report was agreed to.

List of the Minority.

Anson, hon. G.

Nugent, lord

Allen, J. H.

Palmer, C. F.

Benett, J.

Protheroe, E.

Bennet, hon. H. G.

Parnell, Wm.

Brougham, H.

Ricardo, D.

Crompton, S.

Rancliffe, lord

Davies, T. H.

Ridley, sir M. W.

Denman, T.

Robarts, W. T.

Dundas, Thos.

Robarts, A.

Ellice, Ed.

Russel, lord J.

Ferguson., sir R.C.

Sefton, lord

Fitzroy, lord C.

Tierney, rt. hon. G.

Grant, J. P.

Webb, Edward

Graham, J. R. G.

Wilkins, Walter

Griffiths, J.W.

Wilson, Sir Robt

Hume, Jos.

Wilson, T.

Heron, sir R.

Wood alderman

Kennedy, T. F.

Tellers

Lyttelton, hon. W.

Lampston, J.

Martin, John.

Osborne, lord F.

Moore, Peter.