NEWSPAPER STAMP DUTIES BILL.

HC Deb 22 December 1819 vol 41 cc1459-515

Lord Castlereagh moved the third reading of the News-paper Stamp Duties-bill.

Mr. Bernal

said, he had this day conferred with some news-paper venders, and proprietors of news-papers, residing in different parts of the country, and they all agreed that some of the clauses would materially affect those employed in vending cheap publications. They were men of small capital; and the clauses, if severely executed, would be the ruin of them; that which required them to find security would fall most heavily on them. It was impossible for them to find those securities which the act demanded of them; and therefore for the last time, he had to entreat the noble lord, and the chancellor of the exchequer, to apply some remedy to the grievance, by not persisting in the measure as it now stood.

Mr. George Lamb

said, he would make no apology for rising on the same side immediately after his hon. friend, as it seemed to be the system adopted by the gentlemen opposite, to allow those upon his side of the House to go on speaking one after the other, till somebody on the opposite benches might think it convenient to answer. In looking at the measure before the House, it was impossible not to remember a declaration of the noble lord, that it was not his wish to establish a censorship of the press, as if a member of the Crown thought it necessary to disclaim having entertained a proposition from which our ancestors—he did not mean those of Alfred's days, with whom we had very little in common, but those of later date would have revolted with horror.—Perhaps, however, ministers did not go so far as other members of the House in supporting arbitrary principles; for while one hon. gentleman had held that the freedom of the constitution ought to be abridged, another (the hon. member for Corfe-Castle) had said, that Mr. Justice Blackstone had become an obsolete writer. Notwithstanding the awful authority, however, of the member for Corfe-Castle, he must venture to differ from him on that head. He considered the very learned and admirable writer in question of the highest authority, and reasonably held him in that estimation to which his celebrated work entitled him But if these measures were to be still pursued; if the system which was prepared by the noble lord a few weeks ago were yet to go on, he must certainly think the Commentaries of Mr. Justice Blackstone on the law of England were indeed about to be laid on the shelf, as hostile to the state of things which those measures and that system were calculated to produce. He did not know whether the Attorney-general and the Solicitor-general meant to favour them with a new set of institutes of the constitution which they had promulged; but if the progress of arbitrary legislation were to go on with the same fearful rapidity with which it had advanced since the House re-assembled, he was afraid that the sheets of their work would be scarcely dry before it would become altogether inapplicable to the existing state of the times. As to Mr. Justice Blackstone, however, though perhaps he incurred the risk of being thought equally obsolete to quote such an authority, it never entered into his head to suppose that any thing like pains and penalties could be imposed previous to publication. All that that great man laboured for, was, to justify the responsibility of the publisher after publication.—His words were:—"Where blasphemous, immoral, treasonable, schismatical, seditious, or scandalous libels are punished by the English law, some with a greater, others with a less degree of severity, the liberty of the press, properly understood, is by no means infringed or violated. The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published." Such was the forcible demonstration of Mr. Justice Blackstone. In the course of the previous discussion, there had been an attempt made by the gentlemen opposite to distinguish between authors and publishers, and to prove that the restraints laid upon the latter could not affect the former. But it ought to be recollected, that in some cases they were the same persons, and in most cases their interests were completely identified, so that no restriction imposed on the one could be inoperative on the other. The securities required were said to be intended for the purpose of excluding from the management of the press, persons of desperate character, and placing it in the hands of those who were men of substance, and who consequently, both from regard to the station which they held in society, and the pecuniary loss to which they would be subjected in case of abusing the right of free discussion, would be cautious not to publish any work of a seditious or blasphemous nature. But could it be said, that the necessity of entering into recognizances and finding securities was not a censorship?—A censorship, not like that which formerly existed in this country, and which still existed in other parts of Europe—a censorship, not adapted to exclude articles of a wicked or dangerous tendency,—but a censorship directed against writers and publishers of a certain fortune, be their principles good or bad, their works useful or pernicious? No man now, unless possessed of a certain amount of wealth, would be allowed to address his countrymen through the medium of the press; and the poor author, however gifted with talents would be reduced to silence. Lord Coke had said, that there were five trades condemned to perpetual beggary—namely, the alchymist, the informer, the monopolist, the concealer, and the poetaster. The trade of the alchymist was now gone, since the philosopher's stone had been despaired of; that of the informer had lately been prosperous; he would not go over the rest, but would say, that by this bill the author who was condemned to poverty was likewise condemned to silence. Would the measure, by thus raising the pecuniary qualifications of public instructors, tend to render the press more respectable, or exclude those libels which it was the object of the legislature to suppress? It had no such tendency. The rich man, who valued little the sum which it was necessary to offer in recognizance or security, might still publish his libels, however libellous, without the least restraint but the sacrifice of a few hundreds. His money could secure him a ready publication of the most wicked and pernicious works as easily after the passing of this bill as at present; while a man with less wealth, but with more talent or principle, would be restrained from benefitting either the public or himself through the medium of the press, merely because he was poor. Let the House take into consideration the situation of a young man of genius, desirous of becoming an author, after the passing of this act—a young man without wealth or rich connexions, but conscious of talents and acquirements that would fit him for enlightening the public mind on the most momentous questions of politics and government, and enable him to lay the foundations of a lasting reputation for himself. Before he could establish any periodical publication, he must go to his friend to ask him to be his surety; and what would that friend answer to such an application? His answer would be, "I have the highest opinion of your talents and principles; I place the most perfect reliance upon your honour, as far as depends on yourself; I would trust you with my fortune, or my life; but you are going to engage in an occupation in which no human knowledge can guard you from an offence which no man can define, in which no care can preserve you from punishment, in which nothing but supernatural vigilance and con- stant attendance among your devils, can save you from exposing yourself to a conviction for libel, and me from a forfeiture of the bond you request me to enter into." It had been truly said, in a former debate, that many men who had become the glory of their country and the ornaments of literature, had risen from such low beginnings, that they would have been unable to comply with the conditions required in the present bill. To show the original situation of many who had afterwards risen to honours and distinction in the country, he would refer the House to a debate which took place on a motion regarding the conduct of the benchers of Lincoln's-inn passing a by-law to exclude froth their society, persons who had been connected with the public press, when an hon. gentleman who now held a high judicial appointment, and who was then a member of the House (Mr. Stephen, master in chancery) declared that he himself would once have been liable to the exclusion; and advocated the cause of the gentlemen in question in a manner equally honourable to them and to himself. He desired the hon. gentleman opposite to picture to themselves Mr. Burke when he began his literary career, struggling with the embarrassments of poverty, and concealed in the shade of neglect, but laying the foundation of that literary eminence, and preparing those works which had afterwards become the admiration of the world; he desired them to conceive to themselves this great man obliged to go to some miserly friend or some sordid acquaintance, to request his security before he could publish any of his thoughts to his countrymen or procure a licence to comment on the acts of statesmen. From the risks that such friends would incur by entering into the bonds required by the bill, they might have refused, and he might have been prevented from publishing those works which had procured him so much celebrity. It was no fanciful or theoretical danger, that of being liable to penalties without being privy to the libel, or even when opposing its publication. A case had come into court not long ago in which a young man, the editor of a newspaper, was convicted of a libel and punished with imprisonment, though it appeared on the trial that the offensive paragraph had been inserted by command of the proprietors of the paper, for which he was responsible, without his knowledge, and contrary to his wish. On the subject of this bill, he felt more keenly than on the other measures that preceded it; for the House was not now called upon to legislate for any certain or specific evil, as in the case of the training prevention bill—an evil acknowledged on the most certain evidence to exist, and imperiously demanding the interference of parliament to put it down—but they were required to legislate, without any apparent necessity for new laws, on the opinions of the authorities throughout the country, who demanded new powers, and joined from the highest to the lowest, from the justices of the peace down to the police officers in Manchester (who received the recommendation from their predecessors, and would transmit it to their successors in office) in recommending restrictions on the press.—But before they said that education was an evil, before they declared that the present laws were insufficient to repress blasphemy and sedition, before they stigmatised all the societies in the country that had for their object to discourage impiety and suppress vice, gentlemen ought to consider the nature of the new remedy that was proposed to be applied. He conjured the House to pause before they contributed by this measure to put down the generous and philanthropic spirit which induced men to labour for the dissemination of morality; before they prevented the people from reading the Bible and the excellent and cheap tracts circulated by those men, towards superinducing the beneficial results of the Christian religion.—Those who had spoken in support of the bill seemed to think that they could suppress by it one part of the press, and allow the other to remain free—as if they could make one law for the blasphemous and seditious press, and another for the moral and religious—as if they could make a statute to stop the mouth of the blasphemer, the atheist, and the seditious libeller, which would not likewise affect the writer who advocated sound principles in morals, politics, and religion. It was in vain for him to contend against the passing of this bill. The House had already allowed it to be carried to its last stage, but it had not yet decided that it should continue a permanent law. He, therefore, if the bill should pass, would offer a clause after the third reading, if no other hon. gent. should think proper to do so, to limit its duration. He hoped the House would consent to the clause, and not declare its opinion that blasphemy and sedition would be permanent in this country by refusing to accede to a temporary measure for their suppression.

Mr. Pryce

said, that parliament ought not to surrender the liberties of the people permanently to a temporary alarm. It had hitherto been the glory of the English press that it had no previous censorship, but this boast it was now called upon to surrender. Before ministers asked for new powers by this extraordinary measure, they were bound to show that the existing laws were insufficient to suppress the evil complained of after having been duly carried into execution. He was willing as well as the other gentlemen on that side of the House, to sanction measures for the establishment of tranquillity, and he had no objection to the imposition of a tax on some publications, provided the liberty of the press would not be destroyed by the remainder of the Bill. He blamed the government and the law officers of the Crown, for declining to bring on more prosecutions, in consequence of the acquittal of Hone. He must connect the present bill with the other measures which had been brought forward by ministers; and in his mind the system taken as a whole, created more grounds of alarm than the state of the country which it was intended to meet, alarming as that was. In order to see the intentions of ministers, the bills should be considered as they were originally introduced, and not as they were subsequently modified. The honourable gentleman then went over the changes made in the traverse-bill, the seditious meetings bill, the blasphemous libel bill, and the bill now before the House; and contended that their original severity showed the conviction of ministers, not that the power of the Crown should be reduced, but that the influence of the people should be reduced. It had been well said by Montesquieu that the existence of freedom in England mainly depended on the right of petition by public meetings, and the freedom of the public press. How alarming was it to see the former nearly annihilated by the bill for preventing meetings, and the latter about to fall under the enactments of the measure now in progress. He besought the House to weigh well the consequences which would attend the present bill before it gave it its sanction. At least it ought to be rendered temporary. The sentiments which he had uttered were those of an honest man, and he requested the House to pardon him, while he entreated it to give the measure full consideration before it should be finally adopted.

Mr. J. Smith

said, he could not refrain from delivering his sentiments on that part of the bill which required recognizances and securities, convinced as he was that it must be ruinous to a useful body of men. Some objections to it were so evident that they met every eye, and yet no necessity had been shown for enacting it. He himself had at one time great apprehensions from the blasphemous and seditious press, but his mind was set at rest on the subject by the speech of an hon. and learned gentleman last night, who had proved that juries were not unwilling to convict when the prosecution was judiciously commenced, and the trial properly conducted. That speech remained unanswered, and appeared to him unanswerable. That the law-officers of the Crown had not tried the strength of the existing laws, as they ought to have done, before they demanded an alteration of them, was evident from events that came under his own observation. Nothing could exceed his surprise at reading an account of the Smithfield meeting of July last, and at finding that the chairman was not prosecuted for the language of the resolutions signed by him. By one of these resolutions the persons who concurred with the chairman declared that they would not obey the laws beyond the beginning of next year; by another, that they would not pay taxes beyond a certain period; and by a third, that the national debt was a swindling concern on the part of the House of Commons, and ought not to be liquidated. He took it for granted, as he just then arrived in town, that the individual who presided at the meeting, and whom he had never seen in his life, would be brought to trial, and that he then should see him. He concluded that the law could not be allowed to sleep, and that the only question would be, whether the language was merely seditious or not also treasonable. Certain it was that no government could long exist which allowed any portion of the people to pass such resolutions. He really believed that if a prosecution had been immediately instituted against the parties to the Smithfield meeting, the late fatal occurrences at Manchester might never have taken place. Why was not the law enforced, and offenders brought to trial, before new laws were called for? He wished gentlemen to consider whether the present bill would not do more harm to the interests of a body of men who were employed in the trade of circulating cheap good publications, than good in the prevention of tracts of an opposite tendency. Its operation in the first case was certain. It must condemn to absolute ruin a set of men as obedient to the laws, and as well affected to the constitution, as any member of the House, without offering any proportionate advantage; and how gentlemen could bring their minds to support a measure of which this must be the consequence, he was at a loss to conceive. He would not agree to it till it was proved that it was calculated to check more mischief by suppressing bad publications, than to produce injury by ruining a numerous and useful body of men. As an honest man he could not consent to the measure, and the sentiments which he felt, with respect to it he was assured were entertained by most of the inhabitants of the country. Measures, such as the present, could not be enacted with safety, and the House would, he hoped, not consider him intrusive, when he assured it that he sincerely deprecated the enactment of them.

Mr. Cooper

had conscientiously supported his majesty's ministers in passing the bills, which the necessities of the country required to be passed at this important time, and for that reason he would state why he would support them on the present occasion. The press, like other things, was a good or an evil, as it was well or ill employed. The freedom of the Press was productive of benefit, while, on the other side, its licentiousness tended to the injury of the state. All infractions of the law required to be punished, but chiefly infractions of the law on the part of the press, which, instead of breaking the law, ought to labour for its being properly obeyed. Some additional measure of this kind, he thought, was called for by the extensive spread and incalculable multiplication of blasphemous and seditious works. This increase he attributed in part to the effect of Mr. Hone's acquittal. That acquittal excited alarm among all the friends of religion and order, and encouraged a noxious brood of scribblers to proceed with greater audacity, and to scatter their venom through the land. The measures which his majesty's government had introduced would operate as checks to the mischief. It was objected to the present bill, that it was equivalent to a censorship—an imprimatur. This was not the case. It merely required publishers to give security beforehand, that they would abide the award of a judge and jury, in case of publishing any thing libellous. The House had already done much. It had passed a bill to prevent drilling; it had passed a bill to enable magistrates to seize arms that might be turned against the peace of the country; it had passed a bill to regulate public meetings, and to expedite justice; but all these measures would be still insufficient, unless they were aided by a law to restrain the corrupt and mischievous, the blasphemous and seditious press. He thought the measure deserving support, which contributed to put down those pests of civilized society—the itinerant orators, men, who were (as Cobbett called them, in his better days) the parasites of the mob. He was fixed in his opinion that the corrupt, seditious, and blasphemous press ought to be restrained, more especially that part of it which infused a weekly venom into the popular mind; and he, therefore fully accorded with the great majority of the House, in giving sanction to measures, which could alone effectually produce the desired result.

Mr. Calcraft

agreed with the member who had just sat down, that no measure was of more importance than that which went to regulate the freedom of the press. He agreed likewise with the hon. gentleman, that when publication without previous censorship was allowed, the person who published ought to be liable to all the consequences of his own act. This was the law of the land at present. It had been acted upon and found sufficient in the best periods of our history. The only question between him and the gentlemen opposite was, whether the existing law was now sufficient to restrain the licentiousness of the press, without any new enactment. He complained of the increase of blasphemous and seditious libels as much as any of those who supported the bill. Indeed, he might ask, did any one in the House defend that tainted part of the press? All that he called upon the supporters of the bill for was, to show that the law, as it had existed for 120 years, was now insufficient to correct the evil of which he as well as they complained. He contended, in opposition to them, that the law had not been tried and found wanting; and he would appeal to a document on the table to confirm the truth of his statement. What said that paper to which he alluded? It showed that in the year 1818 there was no information filed or prosecution commenced against blasphemous and seditious libels. Why then complain of the law as insufficient, before its insufficiency was proved, or before an attempt was made to execute it? From the same paper it appeared, that in 1819 there had been various informations filed, and those that had been tried had led to conviction. The name of the notorious offender Carlile stood at the head of the list with two convictions opposite his name. Did this prove the insufficiency of the law? Why then bolster it up by this bill? Was not the present bill an innovation on the constitution of the country? Was it not a contraction of the liberty of the press? It was not shown, it had not been presumed that there was a necessity for alteration. Why, therefore, was it attempted? An hon. and learned gentleman had quoted precedents from the recognizances entered into by victuallers, who were bound to give security to keep the peace, and to prevent disorder in their houses, but the cases were very different. The offence of publicans was definite, that of libels indefinite. The recognizances of publicans was small, being only 10l.; that of publishers was considerable. Was a continual system of declamation against the abominable parts of the worst publications a sufficient proof of the necessity of fresh laws on the subject? If the present laws had not proved sufficient to convict blasphemers, then indeed there might be ground for innovation,—for new enactments. But it was evident that this was not the fact. He had no hopes to make any impression on the members opposite, although they were but few then, but who would soon become numerous, to vote for the bill. A number of respectable men had presented petitions against the bill, and would they have done so, if they had not considered it thoroughly objectionable. Blasphemy was abhorred throughout the country. All knew how odious the conduct of Carlile, after it became evident, on his trial, appeared to the country. With regard to the acquittal of Hone; it was well known that he had been prosecuted for an attack on the ministers, and not for his having ║ parodied any thing sacred. With respect to parodies, they had been adopted by men of the most splendid talents, of the most enlightened understanding, and of the most elevated station. The prosecution against Hone was a mere act of hypocrisy. It was impossible that a jury could convict that individual, when they saw that statesmen, bishops, and lawyers had published similar productions; and that a parodist was actually a cabinet minister. The worst of the business was, that the measure was to be permanent. It was declared to be for the security and prosperity of the country; but when did England flourish, if not during the last 150 years. While her press was free, that freedom would always contribute to her greatness and her glory. The Solicitor-general had defended the clause requiring security from publishers, on the ground that recognizances were required from publicans; but the cases were different, as the offence of publicans was definite, whereas that of libel was indefinite, and the recognizance of publicans was small, being only 10l., whereas that of publishers was considerable. The hon. gentleman proceeded at considerable length to oppose the bill on account of its tendency to prevent the spread of knowledge, to repress rising genius, and to restrain young authors in poverty, from a free publication of their works. He denied that Mr. Hone's acquittal had the tendency attributed to it, and said the jury could not have punished that individual when they saw that statesmen, divines, and bishops, had published similar parodies, and that a parodist was now a cabinet minister. He concluded by saying, that if the bill passed, he hoped it would be made temporary.

The question was put on the third reading, which was agreed to without a division. Mr. Bernal then proposed a clause limiting the operation of the bill.

Lord Castlereagh

had the strongest objections to the temporary duration of this bill, and especially to the duration for the short period of one year. If the House could really consider the provisions of this bill as destructive of the liberty of the press, he should be prepared to admit, that whatever the present exigencies of the country might be, it ought to be merely temporary. It was his opinion, however, that there was not a single clause in this bill which could be rationally considered, as an invasion of the liberty of the press; on the contrary, he believed that it was admirably calculated to guard the nation from immorality, irreligion, and those other abuses by which the liberty of the press was always seriously endangered; and therefore he could not see any grounds for restricting its duration to a temporary period. Before he proceeded farther in his argument, it might perhaps be expedient to explain what he understood to be meant by the words, "liberty of the press.'' The liberty of the press, then, as he understood it was, the right which every individual, under the restrictions of the law, and subject to the decision of a court of law and a trial by jury, had to communicate his sentiments to his fellow-countrymen upon every subject, whether that subject was of a moral, a religious, or a political nature. To him the law of libel seemed as necessary to guard the liberty of the press, as any law made to repress the natural violence of human passion was to guard the existence of society. It was therefore the duty of parliament, whilst upon this subject, to follow up the two principles which it had previously sanctioned, and by so doing, to preserve the country from the influence both of local and of general prejudices. The first of these principles was, that all publications commenting on public events, and thereby frequently conveying intelligence of them, should be rendered liable to a certain stamp duty; and the second was, that the publishers of such works (the character of which was too well known for him to dilate upon) should be made responsible for all that they published, and should, by the security demanded of them, be prevented from evading the sentence of the law in future, as they had too often evaded it in times past. With respect to the second branch of the measure, the law had already subjected the printer to a responsibility; and in order that that law might reach him, he was obliged to put his name to that which he printed. But the evasions which had been resorted to, rendered that precaution inadequate to its object. An individual who afforded no security, although possessed of capital, found means of employing a deputy for the purpose of frustrating all the objects for which the legislature required the name of the printer. Now, in order to comprehend the policy of the law founded upon these two principles, it would be requisite to look not only to the present bill, but also to another, which would come under their consideration that evening; it would then be seen, that it was framed with a view to prevent the publication of blasphemous and seditious libels, and not with a view to inflict vindictive punishment upon any person offending against its enactments. That his majesty's ministers were not hostile to the liberty of the press, was evident from this circumstance—that the law now proposed would not affect the larger part of the press, but would only apply to the lower portion of it; to that class of minor publications of the country which was made the deliberate vehicles of mischief—that class of publications which was avowedly directed against the morals and religion of the country, and for the subversion of the government. The individuals against whom this law was intended to operate, had persuaded themselves that the press, as it was now conducted, was strong enough to subvert the government, and had even boasted that in their hands it would have sufficient power to accomplish that purpose. He, therefore, trusted that the House would acquit his majesty's ministers of any hostility to the press in general, when they saw that the provisions of this bill were directed not against the press itself, but against those who made an improper use of it. Now, what were these provisions? One of them extended the stamp duty to all pamphlets of a certain size and description, and to this provision he was not aware that any objection had been started; indeed, it would be a matter of no small difficulty to start one, for if parliament thought it expedient, either for the sake of increasing the revenue, or for any other purpose, to extend the stamp duty now imposed upon the regular newspapers to those publications which at the same time that they contained the most treasonable doctrines, were little better than a fraud upon the respectable part of the newspaper press, where was the person who would dispute the right of parliament to do so? He therefore thought, that none of the gentlemen who sat opposite him would venture to make any objection to this part of the bill, which, as it went to protect the property of the regular newspapers, who had long contributed to the revenue, under the operation of the stamp laws, from an unfair competition, ought to be of a permanent and not of a temporary nature. Having thus proved that to the first part of the new law any limitation of time was totally unnecessary, the next point to be considered was, the second provision in it—he meant that which demanded security from those who employed their capital and talents in the production of such papers as he had just described. And here he thought it proper to observe, that he perfectly agreed in what had fallen from a learned sergeant on a former occasion, that this clause did not apply in any respect to authors; it applied solely and expressly to printers and publishers. In consideration of this clause, he should keep these three sets of men quite distinct, and should first treat of it as it was said to apply indirectly to authors. Now, he would put it fairly to any member in the House, and would ask him, whether he really thought that any regulation of the present bill, extending to printers or publishers, would be an impediment to any author—whose work was not of a dangerous or seditious tendency? After that question was answered, he would put another, and would ask of what nature that work must be which no printer could be found hardy enough to publish? As the law at present stood, an author might compose a blasphemous, seditious, or treasonable libel; he might carry it to a printer living in a garret, and able to change his residence at a minute's notice with as much indifference from London to Manchester as he would from Manchester to London, or any other place: he might find a printer thus circumstanced, who for a small sum would send this work into the world; and after all, he, the author, might say that he was still amenable to the laws of his country. He might, however, screen himself by placing his printer or his publisher before him. And would any one say that it was proper to allow any man to do so? Would any one defend the law which allowed any person to send a flagitious composition before the public, through the agency of a man who could so easily change his residence, and who, therefore, ran such small risk of meeting with punishment? He would now consider the manner in which this clause affected the printer and the publisher. It had been censured as a very harsh and a very impolitic measure to demand security from them before they were allowed to commence their respective trades; but when it was considered what an extent of capital there was in this industrious and commercial country, now unemployed, could any one suppose that there would be much difficulty in men of character procuring the sureties required, now that the sum required for them was reduced in London to 300l., and in the country to 200l.? But it was said that this bill would displace from their occupations men of small, or rather of no capital—who had no other property than the instrument by which they lived. He allowed that it would have this effect; that, to a certain degree, such an effect would be an evil; and that, if there had not been another evil, produced by the present state of the law, more than counter balancing the former one, he would never have thought of thus depriving any persons of their means of living. The ministers had of late had to combat with the most notorious libellers; and yet, though prosecutions had in some instances been instituted, law could not touch them, as they carried on their business by means of intermediate agents, who were well known to be agents, though the legal advisers of the Crown were not able to procure such evidence of that circumstance as was requisite for a court of justice. A name indeed was given in, but that did not render the party really guilty in any way responsible for his offence. That responsibility had been evaded by persons of talent, character, and property, employing their talent, character, and property, in suborning individuals, who were so low in station, that their punishment produced scarcely any effect on the community, to place themselves in that prominent situation in which they ought by no means to be placed. He therefore maintained that if the House had acted on principles consistent with the freedom of the press, in demanding to know the names of the printer and publisher of every publication, it would not violate those principles, in demanding of the printer and publisher of every publication security for any fine imposed upon them, in case of their publishing improper compositions. Indeed, it was quite foolish to suppose that there was any thing in this bill which trenched upon the freedom of the press; the press had no enemy except its own licentiousness; and that, he hoped, would be entirely abolished by the votes of the House that evening. He had no objection to the House considering this clause as introducing a restriction upon capital, but he must strongly insist upon its not being considered as introducing a restriction on the press. He was even ready to admit that, in a commercial country like our own, nothing was more injurious than to lay restrictions upon capital. They were never sure they were on true ground except when capital was allowed to find its fair level. But then he must at the same time contend, that every case like the present should be considered along with all its circumstances. Of the competency of parliament to impose such a restriction, and to demand such security, the argument used by his hon. and learned friend on a former occasion, must have convinced every member in the House who was to be convinced. Parliament had often required such securities from the mercantile interest of the country; and indeed, to speak the truth, the whole of our commercial relations depended on the securities which existed between merchant and merchant. No man could act as merchant without finding securities; and what was the effect of this circumstance? Why, that no man of fair character ever found it difficult to procure them, merchant always being willing to give security for merchant. Indeed the whole history of our legislation was full of examples of restrictions on capital and industry, when the safety of the country demanded them. In the distillery laws, as well as many others, the House by their regulations had constantly shown, that the preservation of the morals of the people was always with them superior to every other consideration. The restrictions now proposed were not restrictions on the press, but restrictions only on the capital employed in printing or publishing. Where was the hardship in calling upon a printer or publisher to give those securities, which were so customary in the mercantile world? The only effect which it could have upon either of them would be to render them cautious regarding the works which they ushered into the world. The present measure was therefore to be considered in two distinct points of view—first, as it applied to the revenue; and secondly, as it applied to the public morals. That it was of importance to the moral character of the country, no one could doubt; that the preservation of that moral character was a point of greater consequence even than the preservation of the revenue, no one would dispute: if, therefore, he had proved in addition to this, that though it was a restriction on capital, it was not a restriction on the press, surely, he had shown good cause why it ought not to be temporary. Looking also to the mild and salutary manner in which the laws of England were executed, he could see no reason why any limitation should be placed to the duration of it. The House, if this law were harshly executed, would have the power to modify it, or, if at any future period, when our present dangers were past, it should think good to do so, to repeal it altogether. At this time, however, it was the imperious duty of parliament to meet the evil fairly in the face; to express its opinion upon this measure fully, earnestly, and solemnly; and by that expression of its opinion to convince the nation, that though it was determined to uphold the press, as a free press, it was also determined to make those who conducted it responsible for the offences of which they might be guilty.—As he did not wish to trespass again on the attention of the House, he should advert shortly to the other bill, with which the present was connected. With regard to the punishment, he would say that he was desirous of avoiding any description of punishment, in its nature or character uncongenial to the nature of the offence. But he trusted that while the House would avoid any punishment that was of a nature uncongenial to the offence, it would on the other hand take all possible care to deter offenders from committing crimes of such dangerous tendency as the crimes connected with blasphemous and seditious libels. The view of this subject which had been taken on a former occasion was perfectly fair. It was, "Did ever this punishment exist; and if it did exist, will it be necessary to apply it as a remedy; and, if applied, will it be sufficient to remedy the evil for which it is intended?" That the punishment had existed, nobody acquainted with our laws and history could for a moment doubt. That it was at present unnecessary had been contended on the supposition, that if the prosecutions for libel had been more numerous, the offence would have ceased before the present time. But on this argument it was only necessary to remark, that those who used it were prophets of what never could be now ascertained. That it would prove an adequate remedy he firmly believed; and being such, if it was not sanctioned by law, every other effort they might make for the preservation of the public tranquillity would be unavailing; and the moral feeling of the country would be greatly disappointed; He repeated, it—the moral feeling of the country would be greatly disappointed. That the moral feeling of the country was interested in the question could not be doubted after what had been witnessed during the debates on this subject. Indeed such was the general conviction within those walls, that his majesty's ministers had trusted to the impulse of the House; they had declined speaking themselves, and those members who had voluntarily come forward in their defence, had spoken more ably and more eloquently than ministers could themselves have done, and therefore it was impossible for any one to doubt for an instant, in what direction the feeling of the country was running. If, therefore, parliament had paused in the midst of its labours, if it had left the country, as some hon. members had advised, exposed during the whole of the Christmas holydays, to the dangers arising from the blasphemous and seditious pamphlets of the day, they would have fallen low indeed in the opinion of their constituents, and would not have been entitled, as they now were, to their thanks and approbation. With respect to the propriety of increasing the punishment on a replication of the crime, (leaving out any convictions for offences committed antecedent to the first conviction, under the present measure) such a course was recommended by every principle of justice or true policy. If the person once convicted of a blasphemous and seditious libel, committed that crime again, this bill, therefore, recognized the justice, as well as expediency, of visiting the second conviction with a severer punishment than the first. He did not indeed, expect to hear it contended by any one, that an aggravation of punishment for a cumulative offence, was not reconcileable with every principle of penal justice. In the event of a second offence, the House would see that the court would be reduced to this dilemma—either they must mete out his punishment to the offender, without taking into consideration his aggravated guilt, or else they must dealt with him in a severer manner than they did on the first occasion when he appeared at their bar to receive judgment. The first of these alternatives was so inconsistent with reason, that no person could be found to defend the adoption of it: and the latter was so fit to be adopted, that banishment was chosen as the best mode of inflicting that additional severity which the aggravated na- § ture of the offence made it requisite that the offender should suffer. As for transportation, he trusted he should hear no more of it, especially as it had been thought fit to withdraw that penalty from the bill, except in cases where the convicted person returning to Great Britain before the term of his banishment was expired, showed a neglect of the court by whose sentence he was condemned. In such cases transportation was to be the fate of the offender, and not death as it was originally intended that it should be. But it had been said, the species of punishment was harsh, and that men ought not, for such an offence, to be subjected to the possibility of suffering the punishment of banishment from the realm. It had been contended that banishment was entirely unknown and quite novel to English legislation. If it was a proper punishment for the offence, the novelty of it could be no insuperable objection, because the laws of England were not so perfect as to be beyond the reach of amendment. But banishment as a punishment, was not novel. To go no farther back than the 36th of the king, that act contained a clause in which it was enacted, that in case of a second conviction for a seditious libel, either by speaking or writing, the punishment was to be banishment or transportation. It was, therefore, a little too much for any member to tell the House that banishment, as a penalty, was novel to the House. Indeed, the most appropriate punishment that could be devised for offenders of this class, was to separate and sever them from that society to whose religious and political institutions they found it impossible to reconcile their sentiments. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House had imagined cases, and had quoted them, as if they had all the weight of facts; they had first supposed a publisher to be twice convicted of selling libellous publications owing to the inadvertence of servants, and had then complained of his case. Would any hon. member pretend to say, that if the inadvertence was proved to the satisfaction of the court, that such a penalty would be inflicted on the defendant as that on which they were now debating? Allowing, however, that it was inflicted in some particular case, would not the House, if it was to regard all the instances of hardship which could be imagined as likely to happen under a penal law, as so many established facts, be com- pelled to make laws in such a manner as would spare the villain, and would deprive the innocent man of the protection to which he is entitled? Happily, the nature of our laws was such, that a corrective was soon applied to any abuse which might grow up under them; and that corrective was always to be found in the mercy with which the laws were administered. Therefore, to quote cases like those which had just been mentioned, was to tell him what nobody would believe, that the laws of England were administered with harshness and severity. He trusted that, as ministers had not shrunk from the responsibility of the situation in which they were placed, but had applied themselves with alacrity to meet the danger, parliament would afford them its succour to repel it with all that firmness and resolution for which it was distinguished. He trusted that the House would see that they had not trenched upon the freedom of the press, though they had placed a restriction upon capital. If he knew how that could be withdrawn without bringing danger on the press itself, he would willingly withdraw it; but as he did not, he must still continue it in order to continue the press in freedom; for he was convinced, that if the press were left to itself, it would be ruined by its own licentiousness, and would receive its death-blow, not from arbitrary kings or profligate ministers, but from those who would avail themselves of its energies in such a manner as would totally destroy them. The system of regulation now recommended, was not new; and if ever the House were justified in interfering with industry, it was in a case which involved the whole fabric of the morals and religion of the country. On those grounds he should resist the bringing up of the proposed clause.

Sir James Mackintosh

rose with extreme reluctance and solicitude, to deliver his sentiments on the question now before the House. His great wish, on this occasion was, if possible, to limit the duration of the bill. The observations which he should have the honour to address to the House would have that object, and that object only. He would not be tempted, by the example of the noble lord, to enter into a discussion of the general system of measures which were now in progress through parliament. If he had been in health, he would have taken the proper time for that purpose. But he feared the time for making an impression on the House had gone by—he reared the time had passed, when, with any prospect of advantage to the public, he could proceed to take an extended review of those measures. Unfortunately, when he might, perhaps, have done so with some degree of effect, he was rendered incapable by severe illness. If the noble lord had confined himself strictly to the question before the House—to the motion of his hon. and learned friend—whether a limitation should be fixed to the existence of this bill, whether a temporary duration might be adopted consistently with the determination which the House had, he thought, unfortunately come to—a determination to support its principles and provisions—he should have been better able to consult his own strength and the convenience of the House. As it was, however, he felt himself called on to make a few observations on the extraneous matter which the noble lord had introduced in the course of his speech, and some remarks on the general principles to which he had adverted. It would ill become him to dissent from the opinion of the noble lord, that the penal laws of this country were capable of amendment. To the furtherance of such an amendment the remainder of his short public life would be zealously devoted. Such an amendment the exertions of a noble friend of his had greatly forwarded, by obtaining a limitation of the power of the attorney-general with respect to the time of bringing on ex officio informations. That, he thought, was the greatest and most beneficial alteration of the criminal law of the country, that had been effected since the Libel bill of Mr. Fox, in 1794. The restriction of the power of the attorney-general and the libel-bill were the two most important constitutional measures that had been effected since the emancipation of the press from the despotic control of a licencer, in 1694; the bringing back of which unnatural authority seemed to be the present wish and intention of some intelligent and enlightened members of the House of Commons. It gave him the highest degree of pleasure, when he reflected, that those great benefits had been obtained for the press by two persons, for the memory of one of whom he entertained the highest veneration, and for the other of whom he entertained the warmest friendship and affection. The noble lord was, he conceived, mistaken, with re- spect to the nature of the other bill before the House, when he declared that the magnitude and extent of the evil justified its provisions. If the magnitude and extent of the evil were the only question, there would be little hesitation in assenting to the proposition of the noble lord: he acknowledged with shame, he acknowledged with detestation, the existence of publications in this country, which no man of a just or well regulated mind could read without the deepest abhorrence. If the prevalence of those libels alone, if the attacks which they contained on the government, if the ridicule which they contained of religion, if the abuse which they lavished on civilized society, if the incitement to crime of every kind which they afforded, if any, or all of these causes could justify this measure, there would be little hesitation in that House as to the course which ought to be pursued. Every other feeling ought at once to give way to the great consideration of preserving the people from such a contagion. But it was proved, as clearly as any moral proposition, that those evils, from whatever cause they might arise, were not to be traced to inadequacy of punishment, and therefore that fresh penal measures were not called for. Inadequacy of punishment might occasion the growth of a particular species of crime. If many prosecutions took place, if many convictions followed, if many punishments were the consequence, and if still, particular atrocities were continued, it might argue a defect in the criminal code. That would be a case where the nature of the evil would point out a specific remedy. There it might be inferred that the remedy would be found in an increase of punishment, because the existing punishment did not eradicate the evil. But could it be said, where there were no prosecutions, and where consequently there had been no convictions, that there the law was defective? He begged not to be misunderstood when he alluded to there having been no prosecutions—he meant not to insinuate any charge against his hon. and learned friend opposite; he agreed in the principles which his hon. and learned friend had laid down on the preceding night, as being those on which an individual in his high situation should proceed in conducting prosecutions. He only maintained a general proposition; he attached no blame to any person: what he maintained was, that in cases only where prosecutions had been instituted, and no useful example had been made, a new system might be tried as an experiment. But it was not the mere existence of the law on the Statute-book, but the due exercise of the punishment that might be indicted under it, that could deter from crime. If the punishment of libel was death by the law, and no prosecution took place, the mere nominal punishment could not avail to suppress the evil. But, suppose, as had been said, that certain of the existing evils arose from the indisposition of juries to find verdicts against particular defendants, would the increase of punishment, he would ask, make juries more anxious to convict? He would not reason it so far, as increase of punishment evidently had a tendency to defeat the object which those who awarded it had in view. Was it the difficulty of obtaining proofs that rendered convictions less frequent? If it were so, would additional punishment lessen that difficulty? Would not witnesses, on the contrary, become more unwilling to appear, and would not those who did appear display more art and cunning, in order to destroy the effect of their evidence? With all respect for his hon. and learned friend, to trace the existence of the evil to any cause that pointed to an increase of punishment was not the way to find out the true remedy. On the contrary, he considered that increase of punishment had a considerable tendency to produce rather than diminish guilt. He would take that opportunity of stating, that when this bill went into a committee, it was his intention, as the best proof in his power that he meant to check the publication of blasphemous and seditious libels, to propose a definition of the crime to which the increased punishment should be applicable. He would endeavour so to frame it, that none but those who were actually and wilfully guilty should be punished; but he would attempt to exclude from the operation of its provisions those occasional indiscretions, those unconscious bursts of feeling and passion which if they did not constitute the chief merit, were inseparable from the ardour of all great public writers. He would propose a definition, which would spare the general press of England, at the period of its greatest purity—at the period when it boasted the most splendid talents—at the period when it had effected the most signal services, for the country and for Europe, from the ignominy of being confounded with traitors, with blasphemers, with those who were guilty of every species of atrocious crime! He would most sincerely endeavour to propose and carry such an amendment as would confine the action of this bill within those boundaries which could alone justify the adoption of any new measure. But to proceed to the bill immediately before the House. The most extraordinary doctrine of the noble lord, to which he begged to call the attention of the House, was the assertion, that the measure was not dangerous to freedom; that it was not an infringement on the liberty of the press, but an improvement of the existing laws. He was willing to allow that circumstances might arise under which it might be necessary to impose restrictions on the liberty of the press, or the constitutional rights of the subject, for the sake of public order; that even a case might be stated in which the sacrifice of a portion of the press might be resolved upon without a crime, in obedience to the awful demands of the moment; but still, however palliated, excused, or justified, the nature of the thing was unchanged—it was a restriction, a great and serious restriction upon the liberty of the press. If the noble lord had not, he thought, unnecessarily, gone into the general argument, and treated the measure with reference to its two branches—the imposition of a new stamp duty, and the obnoxious provisions which demanded recognizances—if he had not contended that it was not an infraction of the liberty of the press, he (sir J. Mackintosh) would have discharged his duty by saying a very few words on its manifest tendency; but it was impossible for him not to protest against the doctrines of the noble lord as being in themselves untenable, and leading to consequences of the most fearful nature. The. House were called on to make a great sacrifice, and the House ought to understand the nature of the bill before they ultimately decided. The noble lord said, that the measure might be considered either as a regulation necessary to improve the law respecting the press, or as a sacrifice of a portion of the liberty of the press for the purpose of preserving the public tranquillity. The latter, he thought, was the true mode of arguing this measure; but let the noble lord view it as he pleased, a restriction on the liberty of the press, a great and serious restriction, it undoubtedly was. This proposition was not perhaps so true with respect to that part of the bill which provided for a new stamp duty: indeed, that part would not be so at all, but for the preamble of the act, which declared, that it was not a tax proposed for the purposes of revenue, but in order to protect the public against various mischiefs. It was indeed like some commercial measures with which they were familiar: it was a protecting duty against publications of a certain size: it was a protecting duty to destroy a class of publications, to the general character of which, as stated by those who had spoken in favour of the bill, he entirely subscribed. But whatever evil those publications were calculated to cause, might, as he had already shown, be repressed by the laws which were at present in existence. Much had been said of copying the example of the Whigs on this occasion: and his right hon. friend, the president of the board of control, had undertaken a singular task in the discharge of his public duty as a member of parliament. He, one of the most eloquent, and most accomplished, and most distinguished ministers of a prince of the house of Brunswick, never lost an opportunity of showing his wit, and exercising his sarcastic talent, in abusing those who placed the predecessor of his master on the throne. No occasion had lately arisen, no subject had been introduced, that his right hon. friend did not descant on this his favourite topic. Those who joined with him in this amusement seemed to forget that, in that House, sixty years ago, those splendid flashes of wit, those lively sallies of imagination at the expense of the Whigs, would have been considered not only highly unbecoming, but almost treasonable; although they were now nightly repeated to the infinite merriment of those to whom they were addressed. His right hon. friend seemed to exult over the fall of the Whigs, when a few nights since he adverted to the time when, as he said, "it had pleased God to put an end to their reign." He would not say who put an end to their reign, but he would say, that they were preserved as long as it was necessary; they were preserved while the throne was in danger: but when the Crown was no longer menaced, when the sovereign was in safety, when the succession was firmly settled, it was then thought fit to sacrifice them, because they would not be the ready and subservient tools of preroga- tive. He knew that his right hon. friend who bade the country beware of the Whigs, who indulged himself and all his friends with various jokes about them, was extremely happy when he could find out any acts of those unfortunate and proscribed individuals, who for 60 years had sat on the opposite side of the House, for three or four years only, when those acts bore any resemblance to those of his friends. His right hon. friend had never indulged them with any comment upon the conduct of the Tories. He would there have met with a better precedent to his hand. It would be found in the amusing publication in which Swift described to Stella his visit to London, (and the coincidence was rather curious as applicable to the present measure) that Swift had himself, being then a distinguished Tory, suggested the first idea of a stamp duty, for the avowed purpose of preventing publications against the government. A history of that transaction might tend to render the debate less dry than it at present was. On the day of the expulsion of Walpole from that house in 1712, a message was brought down from the queen, complaining of the inundation of profane and blasphemous libels which threatened to overwhelm the country. And by whom was that message brought down? That message was brought clown by a person most infelicitously selected, a man of great genius, of extensive learning, of powerful grasp of mind, but not very remarkable for his attachment to religion, or for any great delicacy on the score of writings directed against religious belief,—thatmessage was brought down to the House by Mr. Secretary St. John. This they were told by Swift, that parricide who endeavoured to destroy that very press to which he owed so much, to which he owed all his fame, and at that very moment all his preferment. But what did he tell them further? That this iniquitous measure entirely failed; for those who were the friends of faction contributed money to the persons whom they employed, which enabled them to support the tax, and to publish as usual; while those who meant honestly, who were engaged by no party, could not procure the means of carrying on their business under the new regulation. The act therefore had a very different effect from that which was intended. But to pass to the most important clause in the bill, that which called for securities from printers and publishers. The noble lord said that it was not a restriction on the liberty of the press, but on the capital employed in printing and publishing. For his own part, he could not succeed in comprehending this distinction. He had always thought that the liberty of printing and the liberty of the press were one and the same; that the terms were perfectly synonymous. The noble lord's authority might be convincing to some; but he was confirmed in his own opinion when he recollected, that one of the most able pieces ever written on this subject, the production of one of the greatest geniuses this country or the world ever saw, was entitled "A Discourse on the Liberty of Unlicensed Printing;" the author, John Milton. It was most clear, that authors would not be very likely to flourish, if printers and publishers were obliged to find heavy securities. They had often heard of obscure young men, possessed, however, of great abilities, rising by the exertion of their genius, from the level of ordinary life to those high situations which, it was the glory of the constitution of this country, were open to all. These restrictive measures would act as a barrier against their advancement. But the noble lord, who was born to rank and affluence—who had no necessity to struggle for honours and emoluments, and who had no opportunity of appreciating the obstacles by which obscure genius was encountered, argued, that young men of talent would find no difficulty under this new act in arriving at fortune and fame by the exercise of their abilities. His hon. friend (the member for Westminster) had described so truly, so ably, the situation of an humble individual struggling under the operation of such a measure as this, and endeavouring to free himself from the trammels thus imposed on him, that he (sir J. Mackintosh) was almost ashamed to add one word to what his hon. friend had said on the subject, but he could not avoid it altogether. The noble lord observed, that if the works of a young man were not libellous, or blasphemous, or seditious, he need not fear to get a person to print and publish them. But what were they talking of? What did the bill particularly refer to? Not to single works, but to periodical publications. And he would ask any lawyer, who understood the practice of the courts, who had marked the undefined, and he would add almost undefinable nature of this offence whether a prudent man would feel himself justified in becoming security for one who was every day liable to commit an inadvertent error. Would a prudent individual grant his security to an ardent-minded young man, however virtuous, however well-intentioned, who, he knew would be every day approaching the barrier of the press, and who, if he had spirit (and if he had it not, he would not be worth talking about), would be very apt, at one time or other, to overleap that barrier? When an individual, thus situated, approached his friend, and asked him for this delicate proof of his esteem, would not his friend be inclined to say, "I know you are honourably minded, I know you are a most excellent young man, but I will not become answerable for errors you may innocently commit." He would ask of gentlemen, whether there ever was a writer on passing politics—a writer of mind and feeling—who did not, at some time or other, fall into the offence of libel, and subject himself to the visitation of the law? He knew that sycophants—men of weak capacities—individuals destitute of the fire of genius, who could dress common-place sentiments in smooth language; these he knew, dealing in fulsome trash, might avoid libellous matter. But a man of bold mind, imbued with an ardent love of freedom, reared up in principles of veneration for the constitution, glowing with an honest desire for the welfare of his country, it would be impossible for such a man sitting down to write in defence of that constitution or of that country, to avoid the fearless and animated style which such a theme inspired in such a breast; and by which he might suddenly be subjected to a legal process. He understood the noble lord to say, that this was a law intended merely to restrain an evil: it was indeed a check wholly restraining the efforts of genius, or, at all events, every unprejudiced mind must allow that it would tend greatly to lessen that number of young and intelligent men who wished to take that particular road to distinction: who wished by that particular pursuit to serve the interest of their country. On the other hand, those who did engage in that species of literary career, loaded as it would be by the shackles imposed on it by this bill, and above all, affected by the fear of bringing their friends into danger, would, when they found themselves ineffective opponents—when they found they could not espouse with force that line of politics to which they were attached, at last degenerate into parasites; for in all arbitrary governments a system of parasitism prevailed. Where men could not write and act boldly, they became mean, timid, and subservient. The pompous inflated style of those flatterers was sometimes called the Asiatic style, but it should be denominated the despotic style: for wherever a despotism prevailed, there also this style prevailed. The fact was, the mind of man was generally in a state of activity and excitement, and if it could not be allowed to vent itself against those who misgoverned, it wrought itself into a sudden state of sympathy and even affection for what it was not allowed to hate. Those who were not permitted to write that which was fact, whom the arm of power prevented from following the bent of their inclination, frequently became the sycophants of those whom they had before detested. Wearied with the repose and lethargy of despotism, they worked themselves up into something like exertion; and flew from dulness to hyperbole. Flattery was the natural resource of human beings under such circumstances; and the worst of it was, that the flattery was not always insincere. The very sincerity of the mind stamped it with baseness. The noble lord argued that this bill did not trench on the liberty of the press, but merely affected the freedom of the trade of printing. How could the noble lord separate them? They could not be disunited. That was the road the author was travelling in search of fame and fortune, and if it were barred against him, how was it possible that he could succeed? It was the printer and the publisher who placed him before the world, and to deprive him of their aid, was, in effect, to destroy the ability of the author himself. But it was said that the measure would affect only seditious and blasphemous libels. How, he would ask, did the noble lord distinguish them? Men of learning frequently found it extremely difficult, and the uneducated were not likely to discover the difference. The hardship of this bill was well illustrated by a case which had been stated to the House; it was that of a poor and indigent person who set up trade the other day in a very humble line, and who, if unable to procure the required recognizances, would be totally undone. This individual was, when he entered into business, in the situation of many other persons who from very humble beginnings, as publishers, had finally arrived at the highest condition in life. He understood from those who had the opportunity of judging correctly, that the effect of this measure requiring recognizances would be to drive l–6th of the printers and publishers in London and its environs out of employment. "But," said the noble lord, "they will immediately turn journeymen." This would certainly be a very sudden conversion of one rank of men into another. Now let the House mark what real misery was described in that light language: at what time would they become journeymen? When employment was taken away from them, when their means of subsistence were destroyed. Thus in a moment they would be deprived of the prospect which they had previously cherished of arriving, by an exertion of industry, at an eminent station in society. This information came from the principal booksellers and printers in the city of London—men who professed as great an attachment to the liberty, honour, and prosperity of their country, as any set of individuals, be they who they might. They were men of large fortunes honourably obtained in trade, and they were wholly disinterested as to this question. They were anxious to assist young men who were struggling to emerge from poverty, and who were pursuing that path of fair ambition which the operation of this bill would shut against them for ever. He heard last year with infinite pleasure, the becoming language of an hon. baronet when introducing a bill for the protection of children in cotton-manufactories: he observed, "that nothing could be a more proper return to those by whose exertions he had realized his fortune, than to minister to their conveniences and comfort." On the same principles the booksellers and printers of London appeared before the House, and asked of them to spare those rising tradesmen whom this bill threatened with ruin, and who, if it passed, but for the assistance of the workhouse, must be deprived of shelter and sustenance. Many of those respectable men who thus solicited them, had emerged from the same lowly condition, and, now that they were blessed with affluence, they had more good sense than not to prize their having so risen by their own efforts, more than if they could boast of an illustrious descent. This bill was a restraint on discussion, through the medium of the press, and every restraint of that kind was a restraint of public liberty. The question then turned to this. Ought this restraint not at least to be made a temporary one? Was there any reason for giving it a permanent duration? He was persuaded, that his hon. and learned friend would not adhere to the particular term which he had stated in his clause, if any disposition appeared in the House to alter the term, but still to render the bill of temporary duration. He was sure his hon. and learned friend would be satisfied, if the measure were to do any thing except permanently to restrain the English press. Let the House recollect these words. Let them pause and consider them; let them reflect on their meaning and purport: "a permanent restraint of the liberty of the English press." That was the object of the measure then before the House. Were gentlemen prepared, without farther consideration, to consent to such a bill, which could not be necessary for the mere purposes that had been stated? Let them take it on one or two grounds—that relative to the restraint of printing, or that which respected the security of the public peace. Let them argue it in the first point of view; let them consider the measure as intended to be an improvement of the laws relative to the press, for so the noble lord had described it; but when he stated, that under the existing system there was an evasion of the law, that there was no mode of collecting fines, the noble lord went a great deal too far. Had the noble lord forgotten, that the law, as it now stood, had other punishments besides fines? Did he not recollect, that when the offending party had no property out of which a fine could be paid, the penalty of imprisonment was increased in proportion? He need not state the old saws of the law on this point, which said the same thing in Latin. In its present state the press had remained without a licenser from the year 1694 to the present hour. In that long period there were many times of danger and difficulty, but a permanent measure like this was not resorted to. He would not argue whether the bill would now press heavily upon the people, but whether it was necessary that it should be permanently directed against the liberties of the people. Speaking in that House, he would maintain that it was directly opposed to popular freedom, and he viewed in the same light every measure which abridged the liberty of the press. If it were intended to be an improvement to the constitution would it not be better to adopt it for a little time, that they might be enabled to judge of its effects? If any alteration were proposed in the government—if any improvement were offered to be made even in a public office, they would be told "Let us see for some time how the project acts, let us see how it works, before we make a permanent law on the subject." The act of lord Grenville, which effected one of the greatest and best reforms that were ever made in the state—that act which went to destroy a scandalous system of corruption, was at first only temporary. Its effects were known before it was adopted as a permanent measure. Had the House of Commons so little regard for "The Liberty of the Press" that they would not proceed with the same forbearance towards that great right which had made us renowned amongst the nations, which was eulogized by all foreigners, and which, not satisfied with praising, they now endeavoured to imitate? Would they show less caution, would they show less gradual care, in adopting such a measure as that before the House, than they had manifested with respect to lord Grenville's act—a measure of great importance surely, but not so essential to our freedom, not of such vital importance to us (to use a modern phrase) as the liberty of the press? He recollected the debate in that House in 1795, under circumstances similar to the present; he recollected the speeches of Mr. Fox and of sir William Grant (two of the greatest and most enlightened men in the country) on that occasion; and he well recollected the manner in which the last named individual opened his defence of the measure which was about to be proposed. He (sir W. Grant) said nothing of an improvement of the constitution. "I propose these measures," said he, "under the pressure of a sad and dire necessity, which has left us no choice but to abandon the whole frame of society, or to take away rights of infinite importance." That great man stationed himself on the ground, of "dire necessity,'' and, in doing so, displayed all the prudence and wisdom, and foresight, which were inseparable from every step of his life. The noble lord, though he had put forward the idea of a general improvement of the constitution, betrayed a con- sciousness throughout the whole of his speech, that the measure was only called for by the exigency of the present moment. Why, then, should it be of longer duration than others which arose from the same state of things? One of the other bills, the Seditious Meetings bill, was enacted in 1795, and therefore they were acquainted with its operation. But since the licenser was removed from the press, they knew of no restriction on printing. The bill was unexampled and unprecedented. Nothing like it or approaching to it was to be found in the good times of our history, when the press was unfettered and free. It affected one of the most essential privileges of Englishmen; that of discussing public measures. Was it, then, too much under these circumstances, to beseech the House to influence the noble lord by some manifestation of feeling, to consent that this should be a temporary measure? The noble lord had shown singular propriety in giving way to the House with respect to the provisions of one of those measures; let him then consider the present bill as a mere experiment on the constitution, or else as a temporary measure to expire at a given period. He had heard with some surprise, an hon. gentlemen some nights ago assert, that the liberty of the press formed no part of the Bill of Rights. This was calculated to disparage that bill, to lower it in the estimation of the country, and would have been well worthy of those who wished to make the people think that it was not a Bill of Rights, but a bill of wrongs. He was much surprised that such an assertion should have fallen from an hon. gentleman who was intimately acquainted with the constitution of his own country, and was the historian of another great and free state. He was indeed astonished, that a gentleman who was so deeply versed in the history of the constitution in every part and particular, who had written a history of a powerful and independent republic, who had passed a great part of his life in studying the laws, should have forgotten the circumstances connected with the Bill of Rights.—The Bill of Rights was not only a declaratory law, but was connected with many others containing the most important enactments. He would show how the liberty of the press had a connexion with the Bill of Rights. At the time of the Revolution, a committee was appointed, lord Somers being of the number, to consider of the best securities for the religion, laws, and liberties, of the people of England—the religion, laws, and liberties which the people of England had ever since supported against the machinations of fraud, and the efforts of violence. The committee brought in a very voluminous report, containing many heads and articles Parliament divided those which related to new laws from those that were declaratory of ancient rights; every declaratory clause in the Bill of Rights referred to something mentioned in the preamble as having been perpetrated by the deposed king against the rights of the people. There were other laws passed in king William's reign; the Toleration act—that Magna Charta of religious liberty, which was founded on one of those articles, but which fell far short of what the benevolent and enlightened mind of William had meditated.—Another of those articles declared the necessity of the frequent meeting of parliament. Out of that article the Triennial act arose, and therefore it was identified with the Bill of Rights and the constitution. Undoubtedly the government of king William (which he kept up by every sort of compromise, sometimes with one party, and sometimes with another, who agreed in nothing so much as harassing and persecuting their benefactor, whose name had since been degraded by the enemies of freedom), was not so compact and united as it ought to have been. The king abandoned and left his government to the care of his ministers, anxious to perfect and complete the great design which he had long meditated—the deliverance of Europe from a single despot, an event which was not accomplished until after his death, when that great captain,—the duke of Marlborough, carried into execution all that William had designed. The laws which he had adverted to were still to be considered as glorious measures emanating from the Revolution. Of the same character was the refusal to continue the Licensing act of Charles the 2nd, by which refusal the liberty of the press was established. The liberty of the press was, therefore, the offspring of the Bill of Rights, and arose from the spirit of the Revolution, which, in the sacredness of its character and all the elements of greatness, was one of the most interesting and important transactions in the history of the state; as well as one which most merited the attention and admiration of mankind.

Mr. Canning

congratulated the House on having at length heard, in the long-expected, and not too much to be admired, speech of his hon. and learned friend, those reasons against the system of measures proposed by his majesty's government, which up to that period had not, he thought, been fully stated to the House. In many, perhaps most of the general principles laid down and enforced by his hon. and learned friend, he entirely concurred. But he thought the whole scope of his argument would go, not merely to the present measures, but to any possible restraint by which the complete and unfettered freedom of the press might be affected. Yet even in that principle, as a principle he was not inclined to differ from his hon. and learned friend; for he thought with respect to the press as with every other part of human freedom, that it was a matter of regret when the legislature was forced to interfere. It certainly was a matter of great regret, when to existing restraints, they were obliged to add others not hitherto enacted; and he considered that the justification of the original, or the augmented restraint, was only to be found in the necessity, or high expediency of the case—not in the value of the rights of any set of individuals, but by a comparison of their rights, with the rights and interests of the community of which they were members. It was one great beauty of the English law, that about small things it did not trouble itself. Much was left to the good sense and discretion of the community, and it was only when that good sense was overborne or laid aside, that legislation stepped in, for the purpose of securing those good manners and good morals which formed the cement of society. It undoubtedly was more desirable that they should be secured without positive enactments, but positive enactments were frequently absolutely necessary. His hon. and learned friend seemed to have adopted the idea, that up to this moment the press was that "chartered libertine," which it had been so eloquently described to be; and that this was the first time that parliament had touched the press; as if it did not live under restraints, which showed the impossibility of ascribing that principle of perfectibility to it which his hon. and learned friend had assumed. Whether it was or was not necessary to impose a new modification on the liberty of the press, certain it was that in looking back to former times, they would find precedents sufficient for such a proceeding. He well recollected the conflict of intellect (and a similar conflict he never expected to see again) which was witnessed in the House of Commons in 1794–5. His hon. and learned friend, in adverting to that period, had overlooked the circumstances of the very last restraint which was imposed on the press. When his hon. and learned friend said, that these measures must operate to the entire destruction of the freedom of the press—that there would be an end to discussion—that men of talent and education would be reduced to complete silence as soon as they were passed, he forgot that the same prophecy, uttered in the same style, was pronounced at the period to which he had adverted. The prophecy did not indeed come from his hon. and learned friend, who was not then in the House, nor yet from the Whigs, whom his learned friend had accused him (Mr. Canning) of reproaching (of whom, indeed, he spoke with less respect as a corporation, than he did in their individual capacity), because they had seceded from their duty; but from a right hon. gentleman opposite, who did persevere in his attendance on parliament. The act which gave rise to this prophecy provided, that presses should be registered; that no person should publish any thing without the printer's name, and that every printer should keep a copy of what he printed. These laws, then introduced, were made permanent laws, of which it was predicated, that if they were passed, they would be equal to an imprimatur, and that the liberty of discussion would be destroyed for ever: yet these laws were passed, and he would ask of all those within the walls, and of every man without them, to whom what passed in that House was conveyed, whether the permanency of those laws had tended to narrow the freedom of discussion; or whether, since they had been enacted, one particle of the liberty of the press had been abridged? His hon. and learned friend's present apprehensions were just as visionary as were the fears which existed at the period to which he had adverted. He had no doubt (and it was because he had no doubt that he willingly agreed to those measures), that when they were passed, notwithstanding all that was said of the danger with which they threatened free discussion, there would not be any want of a full canvass that day twelvemonth, of the measures of government, or of parliament. And if it became more respectable and efficient by being rid of that extraneous matter by which it was at present incumbered and polluted, he believed, instead of losing any thing of strength or power, the free press of this country, as applied to honest purposes, would have greatly gained. His hon. and learned friend seemed to forget, that the object of these measures was, to come at the person really accountable for any writing that might be published. He had drawn from his rich and fervid fancy, an animated picture of a young man wishing to raise himself into public notice by literary efforts (as was his own case, and that of his hon. and learned friend), possessing great talents, looking ardently forward to a career of literary glory, and stopped in the very outset of his efforts by this law. His hon. and learned friend was not borne out in delineating this picture. If he looked to those names which flourished in the annals of British literature, he would not find printers and publishers enrolled there, but authors who were dependent on them. They might indeed be found quarrelling, struggling, and estuating under the tyranny of those persons; but his hon. and learned friend could not easily show him a man of that ardent and enthusiastic character which he had supposed his hero to be, anxiously looking at the gain attending practical publications. This measure was not intended, it was not calculated, to throw any obstructions in the way of genius, but it was to restrain offences which arose from mere pecuniary considerations, and which could most appropriately be prevented only by means of pecuniary consideration. In speaking to that part of the question, it was not fair in his hon. and learned friend to excite and interest the feelings, by representing a person arrayed in all the splendid colours which the richness of his own fancy could supply; it was not fair to impose upon their judgments by exhibiting before them an ideal representation, dressed up in all the colours of the rainbow. If the young author should be free from the influence of pecuniary motives, this law would not be applicable to him, and all the interest excited in his behalf was not available to the present question. He begged to say, that in stating the sentiments of young authors respecting printers and booksellers, he did not adopt them as his own. There were not more respectable persons in the world than those who presided over the press of England. Whatever might be said of those times when literature and bookselling stood to each other more in the relation of market and sale, now that they were not distinct and separate, now that they were united, there were not to be found in the world persons so generous, so noble, so liberal to the young aspirant, as the booksellers of this country. On that score, as well as on others, he would throw no obstruction or impediment in the way of publication; and he as well as his noble friend had accordingly removed from this bill every thing which in their judgment could be removed without impairing its utility and efficacy. What inconveniences still remained, must be classed among the unavoidable inconveniences of the times; and traced, not to an unnecessary pruriency of legislation, but to the diffusion of an evil, with respect to the magnitude and malignity of which there was but one opinion in that House, and with respect to the expediency of checking or not checking of which there was no more question than there could be whether one who had the power should take his stand between the living and the dead, and stop the plague. If a few inconveniencies should exist, if the interests of some persons should be partially injured, if certain difficulties should be presented to those who were now on the threshold of their career, men would soon adjust to the new state of things, their hopes and fears, their plans and exertions; they would gradually obviate all the inconveniencies, and leave only to be contemplated in this measure, an additional security to the peace and prosperity of the country, which would enable them to proceed without impediment and with additional confidence. Of all the amendments that could possibly be offered, the present amendment for making the measure temporary was the one to which he was least disposed to accede. There was or there was not ground for passing this measure. If it was proved to be necessary, there could be no reason to believe that it would in a short time cease to be necessary. On the contrary, the venom accumulating till the expiration of this law should arrive, would then be diffused with increased activity and effect. The general character of the press ought to be rescued permanently from the blots which tarnished its beauty and its force. Then would it proceed as it before had proceeded, rendering most essential services to the country, to the cause of freedom, to the happiness of the world. His hon. and learned friend had not mixed up much of his argument with the consideration of the other bill on the table (the Libel bill), but as he had not been able altogether to separate two questions so closely connected, it perhaps would be for the convenience of the House if the little he (Mr. C.) had to say (for though the bill was important, the provisions were but few, and would not require many observations), he said on, the present occasion. The hon. gentlemen opposite had somewhat lowered, and justly lowered the tone of their opposition to that bill—and he knew it would be stated, and truly, that the change in tone proceeded from the concession which had been made by commuting the punishment of transportation for that of banishment. With respect to that commutation, it was the more gratifying to his personal feelings, that it had been conceded to the request of that very respectable body of men, the booksellers of the metropolis. Another petition had since been presented from them, but he hoped that having received this concession to their first application, they would not think it hard if their second application was not received with equal favour. The grievances stated so ably, and with so much distinctness and discrimination in the first application, no longer existed as an objection to the measure in question. If parliament were now legislating for the first time against a crime destructive of the institutions of the country; if they were now to select the punishment which would deter others from following the criminal example, and warn the offender from the repetition of his offence, that punishment was the one which removed from the country and the society which he disturbed, him who, after having offended and received punishment, showed a disposition so rooted in his nature, as to return to the same course. What punishment so appropriate, as to oblige him to abjure the realm whose peace and happiness he had repeatedly invaded and endangered? If this punishment had been so unknown in our history as it was asserted, but not proved, to be; if it had been as new as this act; if it had never existed before; if they were called upon for the first time to assign a punishment for this indefinite, and, if he might not be mistaken he would use the expression more noble offence (for all political offences were of a higher and nobler order than mere larceny); if they were to enact some punishment which would save the country from the perils occasioned by the offences, and remove the offender from the sphere of offending—the punishment of banishment, if not already invented, ought to be found out for the purpose. His hon. and learned friend, as well as many other hon. members, had said, that this measure would leave the press in a worse state than at any period since the revolution. But it was not considered that the state of the press had since that time been greatly improved and elevated. It was not above three or four years since the punishment of the pillory was abolished. Up to that very late period a power was in the breast of the judge to apply that punishment to the crime of libel. Did he regret the alteration thus made in the law? No. He would not refer to his vote upon that subject, for that was nothing; the punishment having been abolished by acclamation. But if it had been then proposed to substitute banishment on a second conviction for the pillory, in all cases, would any rational man have denied that the law would be made better by the change? If this had been the only alternative, would the House have hesitated to adopt it? The pillory was at all times in the discretion of the judge; banishment would be in his discretion only on a second offence. The pillory had been most happily abolished, as it was a most degrading and infamous punishment—a punishment holding up men of letters and education to the gaze and insults of the populace. Be it recollected, too, that this punishment had been applied in modern times. The press had therefore gained a higher rank than it held before. He would go as far as any man in separating the respectable part of the press from those who were hostile, not only to the present government, but to all government. But it was one of the necessary evils of the aggregation of society, that justice could not strike its victim, without in some degree alarming or dispersing the herd among which it sheltered itself. It was no disgrace to the more noble animals, that those who associated with them but to degrade them were singled from amongst them; but the House could not have shown itself equal to meet actual danger, and suppress menaced rebellion, unless it put down the principles which agitated the country, and which wanted only courage in the advocates of them to display themselves in open rebellion. An hon. and learned gentleman had said that the government had already done enough, that the measures already passed were sufficient, and that parliament should beware of driving the people to despair. Good God! drive the people to despair! of all—not fallacies, for fallacies implied a use, though a perverted use, of the reasoning faculties,—but of all the vulgarisms that could disgrace discussion, of all the abuses of terms which could be committed, the misuse of the word "people" was the worst. What was the meaning of the word "people?" The people, as synonimous to a nation, meant a great community, congregated under a head, united in the same system of civil polity for mutual aid and mutual protection, respecting and maintaining various orders and ranks, and not only allowing the fair and just gradations of society, but absolutely built upon them. That was a "people." But in a mass of persons, first stript of the government, then stript of the aristocracy, then stript of the clergy, then stript of the magistracy, then stript of its landed proprietors, then stript of its lawyers, then stript of its learning, then stript of every thing which ornamented and dignified human nature—in such a mass he could no more recognize the people, than he could recognize in the tub of Diogenes the man of Plato. A mere populace, deprived of every thing essential to what by common consent was called a nation, could not, without the grossest perversion of terms, be called a nation. But when the term "people" was applied to a portion of a community arrayed against the interests of the nation; not only distinct from, but hostile to the nation; when the term was applied to such as these, it tended directly to encourage insurrection and rebellion. He was sorry therefore to hear an hon. and learned gentleman of so much eminence, give into the use of so vulgar an application of language, and insinuate that these were two hostile parties—the government, endeavouring to appropriate a certain portion of the constitution, and the people praying to be allowed to retain their rights. The hon. and learned gen- tleman had expatiated on the claims of a portion of the people, while he had left out of view that part of the people without the security of which there could be no order, no safety, no happiness. On their behalf, who were last in the fair arrangement of society, the hon. and learned gentleman had been more solicitous than on that of all the other orders of the state. But in behalf of all the other orders of the state, and on behalf of the last order too, he (Mr. Canning) implored the House to quench, not as a temporary experiment, but with eternal and lasting indignation, the accursed torch of discord which was blazing or smothering throughout the country. He earnestly deprecated the notion of treating this evil as lightly as an excise bill or a customhouse regulation; and he trusted that parliament would not give the authors of the tremendous metaphysics, so unfortunately prevalent, the hope that any hesitation existed on the subject; but that, on the contrary, they would at once enact a measure that would save what was respectable, annihilate what threatened destruction to all order and security, and thus prevent at the same time the present continuance and the future repetition of the evil which called for their interposition.

Mr. Denman

, in explanation, disclaimed any such confined and partial use of the term "people" as had been imputed to him by the right hon. gentleman. The people for whom he had addressed the House, and on whose behalf he had implored consideration and protection, were a part of the nation, born and nurtured under the constitution, and inheriting a right to its liberties and laws. The measures now under consideration would annihilate their rights. When this bill should pass into a law, the liberty of England would no longer exist.

Mr. Brougham

remarked, that the right honourable gentleman having found the speech of his hon. and learned friend, to which he had professed his intention of replying if not unanswerable, rather dangerous to approach, had, by a species of tactics not unusual with him, flown off from it to other topics, and fastened upon a casual expression used by another hon. and learned friend of his, but not meant in the sense attached to it by the right honourable gentleman. Yet to this casual expression the splendid part of the right hon. gentleman's speech exclusively applied.— The right hon. gentleman had first asked what the consequences were of the measure passed in 1799, of which the same consequences had been predicted as were now predicted of this measure. He had told the House, that it had been said at that time that the constitution of England was gone, that the liberties of England were at an end, and that the people were all slaves. The House would judge of the accuracy of the right honourable gentleman's report of what had taken place in 1799, from his report of what took place in 1819, when he put, and put not unwarily, into the mouth of his hon. and learned friend what his hon. and learned friend had neither said nor meant. There was not a more common way of triumphing in argument, than by exaggerating the argument opposed to you. On his side of the House they were not so bad logicians as to cut the ground from under them by exaggeration. A bill was passed in 1799, not to be named in the same day as to degree, nor even to be placed in the same rank as to manner, with the present bills, but which contained a considerable innovation on the law (which if he had been a member of the House he would have opposed) by compelling in all cases printers to furnish evidence against themselves. They were compelled to enrol their names at the Stamp office, to keep a copy of every paper they printed, so that there was never a difficulty in getting evidence of the writer, or the person who was responsible for the writer, of every libel in such papers. It was however, on the efficiency of these measures that he in great part relied as an argument against the present bills. Was it nothing that such an act as that of 1799 had passed? Had it armed the government with no power? Because that bill had been passed, was it not a strange argument to maintain that the important powers thus granted to the government, formed a reason for passing another measure carrying to excess in degree the principle of the former act, and introducing besides a new principle in the legislation of the country? The right honourable gentleman had said that the bill would not touch the sound part of the press; but this allegation he had by no means supported by argument. Men of genius were too often as pennyless as they were friendless, and and every eminent writer must at first be unknown and untried. Now, how could it be supposed that any man of common prudence would for the sake of a friendless and pennyless writer, subject himself to a security of 300l.; or, if the publisher were different from the printer, for 600l ?—Would any man of prudence subject himself to such a risk, without any security for the prudence or the solvency of the Untried writer? The booksellers who crowded the table with their petitions, declared they would not. But the right honourable gentleman said, that this difficulty could easily be got over. If so, he asked, how was it to be got over? It was said that the security of a friend would operate as a caution to the writer; but where was the writer to find the friend? The right honourable gentleman then told them, that the offender must be struck, although the multitude of nobler animals with whom he associated should be scattered. But this was the very reason why he opposed the measure. If the present law were enforced, it would be seen that it possessed full power to separate the innocent from the guilty. If it did not possess that power, let the failure be proved, at least let some instance of that failure be pointed out. When the failure of all other measures had been proved, then would be the time to propose a measure which would involve the innocent and the guilty, the noble and the ignoble in the same punishment. They had been told in the course of this discussion that it was to the tendency of the actions of men, and not to their motives that they must look; that the intention was evidenced by the tendency, and that they should not inquire further. In the case of the verdicts, for instance, on the trials of Mr. Hone, an hon. and learned gentleman had risen in the House, and said that God, forbid he should impute any bad motive to those juries, but that the tendency of their acts was to sap the foundations of our religious establishments. Then again, as to the subscribers for Mr. Hone after his acquittal (though, by-the-by, he was all along spoken of as if he had been convicted), they were spoken of in the same manner as the juries, being as much be praised and as severely censured [a laugh.] Their motive it was said, no doubt, was charity—a thing almost as sacred as the verdict of a jury, but the tendency of their act was most mischievous. In the same manner he should consider the conduct of the ministers; their conduct, with respect to the press had been most pernicious in its tendency, though God forbid he should say any thing of their motives. But if, ║ as he should be able to show, the conduct of ministers had an inevitable tendency to produce the effects which were now manifest, he asked with what face they could come to parliament and ground on three years toleration of the licentiousness of the press, if not a subversion, a serious restriction of its liberty. He had already mentioned to the House some instances of the length to which the licentiousness of the press had been carried. He had been told by some, that it was incredible such things could be written in this country.—He too should have been incredulous as to the existence of such writings, but for the evidence of his eyes. In one of these productions (Sherwin's) the question of resistance was seriously discussed in a series of weekly discourses, not stating the matter as in speculation, but applying it as to the present times, and the present rulers, under the head, "The Folly of Petitioning Parliament." This was in the years 1817–18. In the course of these essays, the people were told, that unless "they awakened from the fatal delusion of petitioning parliament," unless they taught their tyrants that bayonets were not made for tyrants alone, but for the people, there was an end of the last remaining hope of liberty. The general subject was brought home, and applied by practical illustrations. He should still doubt, if he had not the evidence of his own senses, that such language could be published by an Englishman, and in the city of London. He next read an extract from the same publication, in which it was recommended to "pull down the present dynasty." On the 12th of July, 1817, a number was published which contained this expression;—"When reform (the writer had made it previously manifest, that by reform he meant revolution) shall have taken place, it will be asked why a million and a half is given to one man. (Here the writer showed his accuracy, when he said that his majesty had 1,500,000l., just as a lord of the admiralty had 1,500l. for his private or personal expenses.) It will then be asked of what use he is, what service he performs, or whether it would not be as well if his services were dispensed with, &c." Afterwards occurred an expression that persons were "degraded by the name of subjects." Again, "Petitioning is now synonimous with patience. Government must soon expire for want of means; but ought we to wait for that period?" He begged pardon for trespassing so much upon the patience of the House, by reading as he had done from a printed book in the absence of the hon. member for Montgomeryshire, who, if he had been present, would perhaps have made it necessary to call the individual to the bar of the House. It was not in this publication alone, that such doctrines were to be found; there was an infernal constellation of such writers. The Cap of Liberty; The Medusa; The Gorgon; &c. and surely never were names better adapted to the things. All were not alike; the bolder tried the way, and when impunity was deemed secure by experience, others followed.—In 1817, there were but two or three; in 1819, ten or twelve had sprung up. In one, assassination was alluded to by the expression "the bountiful interposition of Providence, by the assistance of John Bellingham." In another, on the occasion of a memorable death, which he thought had united all the country in a common sorrow (that of the Princess Charlotte), the writer anticipated a disputed succession, and discussed the qualifications of monarchs. "We had," he said, "experience that a king might be a fool and an idiot; that the more unprincipled the man, the better the sovereign; that he ought to be a villain, or the monarchical establishment of England would fall off from its reputation." Another remarked, that the attorney-general had at length mustered courage to notice the writer's labours.—This was three months after the libel had been printed. Then, indeed, when the measure of the attorney-general's forbearance was full, notice was taken of this publication, and three months after that notice this display of tardy vigour was made matter of taunt by its object, who added, that he was determined to lose his life rather than that the government should continue. Then followed a libel on the private character of our venerable monarch, which so far exceeded all he had read in atrocity, that he must be spared the pain of repeating it. That was in November, 1817; and he desired to know whether the writer had ever been brought to trial? If the trial had come on, it certainly was not in any court of justice in this kingdom, for the only notice that had ever been taken of the libel was in the publication itself. On the 26th of September, 1818, a new line of attack was commenced: then appeared some observations on the administration of justice, in an article, entitled "Remarks on the mur- ders about to take place at the Old Bailey"—alluding to the trials for forgery. The world was not left in the dark as to the writer's opinion of the judges. One of the remarks was—"The knave on the bench will not fail to say," &c.; meaning of course the chief justice, or one of the puisne judges. Yet this man was never brought to trial. It had often been said, that assassination would never be allowed to be openly advocated in this country; but the following extracts would show that it had been publickly recommended, and recommended, too, with impunity. The work of colonel Titus, in Cromwell's time, called Killing no Murder, was no bad beginning; but this which he was about to notice, and which appeared in the spring of 1818, went much farther. The writer, after remarking that he had lately met with an old book called, Killing no Murder, proceeded to apply the doctrine of colonel Titus to the men who now governed the country, pointing them out individually, by naming the offices which they respectively held. He afterwards said, "When they began their system of tyranny by suspending the Habeas Corpus act, the proper way would have been to have put them to death." Again, it was asked by this writer, "Are not any means justifiable that may put an end to such a system? and would not that man who should destroy such a government, deserve well of his country?" But he should not trouble the House with any more of these extracts. If those cheers meant that the extracts which he had already read were not to the purpose, he denied the fact; for they showed, that with these atrocious libels before them, and with the means of putting them down in their hands, those whose duty it was to suppress them had not attempted to use the existing means. If, on the other hand, it was meant by those cheers that he had read more than was sufficient to prove his position, his object was answered. As that, however, might still be doubted, he should take the liberty to read another passage, to show that assassination had been unequivocally recommended. [The hon. and learned gentleman then read a long extract, in which it was stated that taxes were unjust, and that any man who imposed them, or demanded them, whether minister, magistrate, or collector, might be justly put to death with any weapon, either dagger, sword, knife, or pitchfork.] Such was the flower that sprouted in the spring of 1818, after the libels which had been published when the leaves were falling in the preceding autumn had been allowed to pass unpunished. And what wonder that the impunity with which they had so long been permitted to transgress should have led to this result—should have induced them to recommend the assassination of the governors of the country? This it was that brought him to the same conclusion with his hon. and learned friend, that till it had been shown that the existing laws had been applied, and had been found ineffectual to put down the mischief, parliament ought not to make new laws, putting additional power into the hands of those who had made so little use of that with which they were already vested. When any one contrasted the late apathy with the rigour, amounting almost to persecution, with which at one period all liberal principles had been treated, he thought that one main cause would be discovered of the extent to which this licentiousness had of late been carried. About eight or nine years ago, a prosecution had been instituted against an individual, for publishing an article, of a character very different indeed from that of the publications to which he had just referred. Of that article, the most libellous part was the following expression:—"What a glorious example it will be in the power of the Prince Regent to set when he succeeds to the throne!" and the person first brought to trial was not the original publisher, but one who had copied it into his paper from another publication. The result was, that he was acquitted, and properly acquitted, not only in the opinion of every liberal person unconnected with the proceeding, but he might say, in the opinion of the learned judge who presided at the trial, and who summed up the evidence with a leaning to the side of the defendant. Now, he would call on any honest man, to lay his hand on his heart and say, whether he believed that any course could be pursued more calculated to sap the very foundation of the laws, than this unequal manner of administering justice—one day allowing treason, blasphemy, and incentives to assassination, to pass unpunished and unnoticed, and another day incurring enormous expenses by prosecuting persons who had not offended against the laws. Having said thus much on the question immediately before the House, he should not have trespassed longer on their attention, had not something been said on a former night, which had made a greater impression than almost any other circumstance that had been stated respecting the progress of blasphemy and sedition, but which he had the means of completely contradicting. He alluded to what had been said by the right hon. member for Dublin, respecting the practice of teaching blasphemy in certain schools, called Union Schools, in the north of England. Schools of that description were of such service to the community, that they ought not to be charged without sufficient reason. He believed it was the schools at Stockport and Macclesfield against which the accusation was brought; and a gentleman of great respectability, who had inquired into the matter, had furnished him with the means of showing that the accusation was perfectly groundless. This gentleman, who was as great an enemy to sedition and blasphemy as any of the hon. gentlemen opposite, had visited the schools in question, and from his letter, part of which he would read, the House might judge of the nature of those schools. The hon. and learned gentleman then read extracts from, the letter, in which it was stated by the writer, that he found in the schools 25 bibles and testaments; that the primer used was Mrs. Trimmer's spelling-book (was this "the blasphemous primer?"); that the teachers were steady serious persons; that the expense of the schools was defrayed by a subscription of one penny a week for each child; that sermons were preached every Sunday; that the preachers who officiated were five in number—three Methodists and two Calvinists; that in the morning, prayers were read before any instruction, and that prayers were read in the evening before the dismissal of the boys. In short, that the whole discipline of the school was connected with prayer. Here the hon. and learned gentleman, observing some symptoms of impatience, said, he was aware that many persons liked better to listen to accusations than to the refutation of groundless charges. Those who maintained that the "intensity of light" which had burst on the people, disqualified them from enjoying liberty; those who held that education was a curse, calculated to make the people bad subjects; those who entertained such opinions were more likely to be heard than himself, from the cause which he had stated—namely, that groundless charges were lis- tened to with more patience than the refutation of such charges. He thought it important, however, that these schools should be defended from an unfounded accusation; and he was sure that no one would rejoice at the correction more than the right hon. and learned gentleman who had been led into this error. Could it be supposed, that in these schools they were in the habit of using blasphemous primers, and that, whenever a person rapped at the door, they put them out of the way, and got Mrs. Trimmer's spelling-book ready to be exhibited? The writer of the letter before alluded to stated, that the discipline of the school was of an evangelical cast, and that meant too religious. He was not one of those who was credulous enough to believe, that in the presence of visitors nothing but the Bible and Mrs. Trimmer's Catechism was in the hands of the children, but that the moment strangers turned their back, the masters, with shut doors, taught irreligion and blasphemy. To expect the House to believe that such was the real state of the case, was to draw so unconscionably on its credulity, that in his opinion the draught would not be accepted. He believed that not one atom of treason or irreligion could be found in these schools. He should not forget to state, that they had some copy-books, containing sentiments respecting the affair at Manchester, which were not likely to be relished by persons of ultra-tory principles; for although there was nothing whatever of a seditious nature in them, they were expressive of opposition-politics. It ought to be observed, that the magistrates had no affidavits of the facts which they had stated respecting these schools; they had merely sent up the report on hearsay. The gentleman from whom he had received the facts which he had submitted to the House, added in his letter, that all these schools were supported by subscription, and that, as there was not one of the subscribers so high in rank as a shopkeeper, it was with the utmost difficulty they were able to support them; but that still they struggled, at the expense of their own comfort, to provide instruction, religious instruction, for their children. Yet against these persons a clamour had been raised, and they had been represented as wretches, who were not content with speaking and publishing blasphemy and sedition, but were even labouring to poison the minds of their children with those principles. Thus much he had thought it necessary to say in vindication of these schools, although the subject was not immediately connected with the question under discussion.

Mr. Plunkett

said, that every person who had heard the hon. and learned gentleman who had just sat down, must be sensible that he owed it to himself and to the House, not to suffer the allusion which had been made to what had fallen from him on a former occasion to go unanswered. It was now nearly a month since he had taken the liberty of offering his humble sentiments on the situation of the country. At that distance of time he had made use of expressions, which, he ventured to say, had been that night most completely although he was sure not intentionally, misquoted. He would take the liberty of stating what he believed he had said, and thus the mistake which had arisen would be set right. He was first charged with having said, "that the conduct of magistrates ought not to be too critically inquired into." Now he begged permission so state, that at the time he made use of this expression, there was no appearance of an indemnity being asked for on the part of the magistrates, nor, as he was apprised, of any intention existing of screening them from the operation of the law as it affected their conduct. He conceived that their conduct was open to inquiry in the court of King's-bench, and he did say, that it was inconsistent with the dignity of the House to stop short in the task which their public duty imposed upon them, for the purpose of critically inquiring into their conduct, and for parliament to exercise a degree of criticism which could not have been exercised in a court of justice. This was what he meant to say, and what, he believed, he had said. The next charge brought against him was, that he had looked for a definition of liberty among the records of the Roman empire, and in the Justinian code. He had defined personal liberty to be potestas faciendi quicquid leges, licet; but he had at the same time said, that there was as well as a personal a political liberty. It would have been candid in the hon. and learned gentleman to have stated, that he had made that distinction. His hon. and learned friend had brought another charge against him, which was that he had asserted, that the "intensity of light" which was thrown on the people unfitted them for the enjoyment of liberty.

Mr. Brougham

. I did not say that you directly said so, but such an inference was deducible from your expressions.

Mr. Plunkett

resumed. He would now state what he did say on that occasion, he had said that an intensity of light (which he did not regret but rejoiced at) was thrown upon every subject for the last few years, that public curiosity, with respect to the affairs of government was excited to such a pitch, that the faculties of the great portion of the people were not sufficiently exercised to consider well and thoroughly—that therefore it was likely to lead them into error, and that it was the duty of parliament to see that good and wholesome food was administered to the minds of the people. His hon. and learned friend had said that he had charged some of the schools in England with teaching blasphemy and sedition. He admitted that he had said he believed blasphemous libels, which had been made the subject of public prosecution, had been formed into primers for the purpose of inculcating into the minds of children that description of pestilence. His hon. and learned friend had stated, that it was a mistake to say that any thing like blasphemous or seditious doctrines were taught in certain schools. But admitting the statement of his hon. and learned friend to be quite correct, would that serve to prove the fallacy of the information which he (Mr. P.) communicated to the House, upon a former evening? That information he still believed to be correct; and surely his hon. and learned friend was not prepared logically to maintain, that because he was acquainted with certain schools where no such mischievous system of education was admitted, that therefore this system was not pursued in any other schools. His hon. and learned friend's contradiction could not, indeed, be effective, unless it applied to the precise schools in which he (Mr. P.) had the best authority for stating, that instruction in blasphemy and sedition actually prevailed. But he had this evening had a letter put into his hands by a member of that House not then in his place, from which letter it appeared that the blasphemous doctrines which had of late been so widely circulated, and so justly censured, were inserted in primers, for the purpose of inoculating children in a particular school, the name of which he felt it would be in- delicate to mention. The letter he should be happy to communicate to his hon. and learned friend, but he did not feel that he should be justified in pointing out the particular school, as the individual concerned would have no opportunity of defending himself. And now having said so much as to his personal vindication, he begged leave to say a word or two with respect to the merits of the bill under consideration, which, in concurrence with the language of his right hon. friend on the other side of the House he could not conceive in any degree an infraction of the liberty of the press. In the first place, this measure did not in any degree interfere with the great standard and truly useful works which were published by the respectable booksellers: and then as to those ephemeral publications which were called newspapers, which were highly respectable, and in which facts were fully stated—in which productions were generally tolerated, as they ought to be, far beyond the line of argumentative disquisition, this measure only proposed to put other periodical publications on the same footing as those newspapers. What then, could be fairly urged against the adoption of such a measure? It was said that there was a class of publications containing ribaldry and trash which no respectable newspaper would admit, because any newspaper inserting such offal would not be read long or continue respectable; and that such publications should be tolerated for the indulgence of a certain part of the people. All that was intended was, to impose the same duty on those publications which were now sold for twopence as upon newspapers, and this he would say, that if any portion of the people required such a supply of filthy luxury—if they would have such a separate table, they must pay for the gratification of their depraved appetites. His hon. and learned friend, whose eloquence he heard with the admiration which the whole House must have felt, had deplored the fate of young literary aspirants, who he said would suffer by the operation of this measure. But how suffering was to be apprehended he could not at all imagine, and he could not help expressing his astonishment that this distinguished individual who was so worthy to be the great historian of his country, could condescend to fall in with the clamour that was raised upon this occasion, and to contend that the restriction of the filth and ordure, was calculated to restrain the liberty of the press, and to injure that freedom of discussion which was the pride and glory of the constitution of England. The aspirants alluded to by his hon. and learned friend would have ample opportunity, notwithstanding this measure, to send forth their productions to the country, and therefore there could on that score be no reason to oppose the enactment of such a law. The bill was only calculated to suppress those publications which were likely to abuse rather than to maintain the liberty of the press. In the whole course of his political life he had never done any thing more satisfactory to his own mind, or which appeared to him more deserving the approbation of his country, than the part which he had taken on this and the other measures, which, with a view to the public safety, the House had lately felt it necessary to adopt.

Mr. Tierney

thought that his right hon. and learned friend when he complained of misquotation on the part of others, ought at least to have taken care not to fall into a similar error himself. He had insinuated, that all on that side of the House objected to this bill on account of the lower class of publications which were sold for two-pence being about to be placed in point of duty upon a footing with other newspapers. He would appeal to the House whether that construction of their arguments was not incorrect. So far from objecting to this equalization of duties, they had, and more especially himself, distinctly stated that they had no sort of objection to this part of the measure. But what was most extraordinary on the part both of his right hon. and learned friend and of the right hon. gentleman opposite was, that they had totally omitted what was the real objection to this bill, and that was the clause which called upon booksellers to enter into recognizances, in London of 600l., and in the country of 400l. If this were not a fetter upon the liberty of the press, in the name of God let the bill pass. It was no less, in fact, than saying, that whatever might be a man's talent or virtue, if he attempted to enter into this sort of speculation, he would immediately become tainted and suspected, and must find security for his good behaviour. His right hon. and learned friend and the right hon. gentleman studiously avoided the great objection to this bill, that the danger to the liberty of the press did not arise from its provisions against the seditious, but against every branch of the hitherto free press of the country. How was it that both these gentlemen never adverted to the recognizances which this bill called parties to enter into, without any previous or possible knowledge of the nature of the subject on which they were to write? How came it, that in contradiction of all former principles in the law of libel, the booksellers and publishers were now made the objects of jealousy and penalty? This was a principle not at all consistent with those sentiments which were once expressed by a noble and learned lord now in the other House, who, if, a speech of his when he was attorney-general, which was in the first person, and which he presumed from that circumstance had been reported by himself, were correct, distinctly stated, that his object was, to get at the libeller, and not at the publisher. Allusion had been made by a right hon. gentleman to his own sentiments on this subject; he was sure (although he never corrected a speech of his delivered in that House in his life, at the same time that he had to acknowledge the extreme but unmerited accuracy with which what he had said had been reported), that no sentiment of his could be found at variance with the opinions which he had expressed on the present occasion. [The right hon. gentleman was now making some reference to the Whig opinions of his right hon. and learned friend, which he regretted had not been given more Whiggishly, when he was seized with a sudden indisposition, which for some time deprived him of utterance. Having partially recovered, he proceeded.] He hoped the House would excuse him. He was entirely exhausted. Indeed he felt unequal to the task of addressing them when he rose. But were it the last time that he should ever be allowed to speak in that House, he was most solicitous to avail himself of it to record his protest against the system of measures now pursuing. He believed it in his conscience to be wholly ineffectual to its proposed object, while he feared it would be most prejudicial to the liberties of the people. He conjured the noble lord to make the present bill one of experiment. He conjured him to consent to its limitation to one year. If its advantages should be illustrated by the result, the noble lord might then with good reason call upon parliament to prolong it. If, as he believed it would, it should prove Injurious, the noble lord would then have the opportunity, as he had no doubt he would have the inclination, to relieve the country from its operation.

The Attorney General

defended the law officers of the Crown from the charge preferred against them by an hon. and learned gentleman of having neglected their duty by permitting the most atrocious libellers to escape unprosecuted.

Mr. Brougham

was explaining, when he was called to order. If the House thought him not entitled to explain, he would make a motion—it was indifferent to him.

Mr. Martin

rose to order. If the hon. and learned gentleman intended to frighten the House—

The Speaker

observed, that any hon. member in calling another to order, should be careful not to commit disorder himself. It was customary to allow hon. members to explain; but as it was matter of courtesy, the privilege ought to be used moderately.

Lord A. Hamilton

supported his hon. friend's motion.

The House then divided: For the clause, 47; Against it, 182: Majority, 135.

The Bill was then passed.