Dr. Lushingtonrose to present a petition from Thomas Dolby, bookseller, in the Strand. The petitioner began by complaining, that after being established in busines for 13 years, and never having been subjected to any prosecution, he had been lately twice exposed to it, by a self-denominated "Constitutional Association." That after having escaped the vigilance of the attorney-general and the secretary of state for the home department, whom he Considered to be the only persons appointed by law and the constitution to take cognizance of the offence of libel, he had fallen into the clutches of an association which had constituted itself an auxiliary to those two officers of the Crown. He said that the alleged libel, for which an indictment had been preferred against him, was contained in an obscure periodical publication, which he had discontinued before the prosecution was commenced. He stated, that after a true bill had been found against him upon such indictment, he was held to bail fop his appearance, thereto, and for his good behaviour in the 1115 meantime. And here he (Dr. L.) could not help remarking that this self-styled constitutional association placed their chief reliance upon four statutes which had been recently passed, and which he must ever consider as tending to destroy the rights of the people, at the same time that they added largely to the power and influence of the Crown. Those acts, he was sorry to say, this constitutional association had placed in front of their battle, and by those acts they professed that it was their intention to suppress disloyalty, sedition, and blasphemy. Under one of these statutes the petitioner, he must repeat, had been held to bail for his appearance and subsequent good behaviour. He had then had several interviews with the attorney of the society, one Charles Murray; at the last of which, that person proposed to him the terms on which the society would drop the prosecution against him. He (Dr. L.) could wish the House to attend to the terms on which these constitutional gentlemen were willing to give up the prosecutions which they had instituted; because the preferment of an indictment, even if it failed, was calculated to do serious injury to a tradesman, and, independently of the anxiety which it created in his family, went to involve him in a ruinous expense, which he was obliged to pay when acquitted, just as much as if he had been found guilty. All these were great and crying evils, and formed the strongest grounds why the power of pro-securing for libel should only be intrusted to government, which was responsible for the conduct of its servants. What then did the House suppose the terms to be, on which the prosecution against the petitioner was to be discontinued? They were as follow:—That the petitioner should submit to plead guilty; that he should pay all the expenses; that he should deliver up his stock; that he should give certain information as to the author of the alleged libel; and that he should enter into an engagement not to sell any books which the Association might deem offensive for two years. What did the House think of the legality of a society which attempted to extort compliance with conditions like these? Whether they were prosecutors within the pale of the law, he would not at that moment stay to inquire; but this he would say—that from the moment they attempted to wrest from their victims such terms as those which be had stated to the House—from that 1116 moment he would say that the association was guilty of conspiracy, and that the associators themselves were illegal conspirators. The petitioner stated that he was desirous to get rid of the expense and hazard of defending himself against so powerful a body—powerful it was indeed —and sorry was he to observe among the number of its supporters several individuals who held high situations in the state, some of them being prelates and other i personages who, as they were judges in the last resort, ought to have abstained from the institution of proceedings upon which they might yet be called on to pronounce judgment. The petitioner, he had been about to state, being anxious to get rid of the expense of this prosecution, had been -willing to accede to some of the terms of this Charles Murray, and had entered into a negotiation for that purpose with the said gentleman. That negotiation had proceeded to some length, when at last it was suddenly, and without the assignment of reason, broken off by the Association. Its vengeance was not satisfied by the petitioner's offering to accede to some of the terms which it had proposed. They wanted further concession, and in consequence instituted a second prosecution against him. No sooner was that prosecution instituted, than they arrested the petitioner again, and carried him, within an hour from the time of his arrest, to plead to it in the court of King's bench. He was then held to bail before one of the judges of that court; he offered the same persons for his securities as had appeared upon the former indictment. The solicitor for the association objected to them on this ground, and insisted that the recognizances into which they then entered had been forfeited by the finding of the second indictment. Now, upon that part of the conduct of the Association, he could not help remarking that he knew of no better way of getting and keeping men in gaol than by commencing prosecution after prosecution against them. It would be no easy matter for a tradesman, however respectable he might be, to find persons willing to enter into heavy recognizances, time after time, for his good behaviour; nor indeed would it be an easy matter to find persons willing to become bail at all to prosecutions commenced by so strong and powerful an association. The petitioner then proceeded to state, that in consequence of Murray's giving notice to 1117 his bail, that he should take proceedings in the court of exchequer to estreat their recognizances, they required him to sell his property, and provide for their security. The petitioner accordingly made preparations for doing so, but afterwards desisted, having discovered that the threat which Murray had held out was illegal. In the meanwhile a rule for a special jury had been obtained by the prosecutors. Now that circumstance was not unworthy the consideration of the House. The prosecutions set on foot by this association could not be safely intrusted to the usual judges in such cases, a common jury of the country—no; so great and mighty was this association, that nothing but a special jury could serve their turn; The petitioner, such being the case, called on the solicitor of this association to deliver to him the names and addresses of all members of the society liable to serve on juries in the county of Middlesex, when it appeared that such list could not be furnished in a state to be of much use to the petitioner. He therefore obtained a rule calling upon that solicitor to give a full and proper list of their names. That rule was argued in the court of King's-bench; after which the Court gave the petitioner the right—and perhaps it was all the remedy which could, under the circumstances, be rendered to him—of asking on the trial each juryman whether he belonged to this association. He could not help thinking that it was a most extraordinary circumstance that the Court should be compelled to resort to such an expedient as they had devised—an expedient that was unnecessary and unprecedented until a constitutional association had risen up and rendered such an innovation necessary. [Cheers]. As to the legality of the Association, it had been defended by reference to the existence of the Society for the Suppression of Vice. He had always thought that the inutility and absurdity of that society were alike; it had been worse than useless, for it had even injured public morals, by drawing subjects into notice that otherwise would have remained in obscurity. He should never forget the mock modesty with which it had sent a notice to an hon. baronet, complaining of the indecorum of some of the ornaments of his residence. The petitioner went on to state, that if some means of repression were not adopted by the House, he might still further suffer from the persecution of this body, and he 1118 prayed, therefore, that the House would afford him such relief as was within its power. As he (Dr. L.) was firmly of opinion that there was a design in this association to curtail the liberty of the press, under the specious pretext of repressing disloyalty; as he saw plainly that the object of the leaders of the combination was to ingratiate themselves with ministers, and not to promote the benefit of the country; that their proceedings were the result partly of folly, and partly of meanness; and as he was satisfied that mischief must be the consequence of taking prosecutions out of the hands of constituted authorities; he gave his cordial support to the prayer of the petition.
§ Sir M. Cholmeleysaid that he should be deficient in duty, as well as in manliness, if, as his name was among the subscribers to the Constitutional Association, he did not stand forward to state the reasons that induced him to belong to it. When he first came to town to attend his duty in parliament, he had been greatly shocked in passing, through the streets to see offensive placards on the walls, and gross caricatures in the shops. He observed that sedition and blasphemy were increasing daily, and he was of course anxious to put a stop to their progress. He remembered that when he was a young man, if a person wanted to see a bad caricature, he could not do so without going into the shop; but now they were thrust upon the notice of the passengers; and no man could go through the streets without having his eyes insulted by the most offensive placards and comparisons of an odious kind between the highest personage and the greatest of tyrants. He had even seen a representation of a bull with a woman on its back, which woman was meant for a royal personage. When it was at first proposed to him to belong to this association, he had particularly, asked whether it had any political view, and he was answered that it was not intended to prosecute libels upon any political party but generally to put down disloyalty. Being assured that such only was its object, he had promised to attend the meetings but on account of his frequent presence in parliament, and the late hours to which the House had sat, he was able to do so, and could not therefore hold himself responsible for what had been done in his absence.
§ Mr. Denmangave the hon. baronet full credit for all his assertions. He was 1119 quite sure that he would never have become a member of the Association, if he had seen the paper published under the name of a "Sharp," and had heard of the active conduct imputed to various members of it. He could not help saying, that if it were proper to put down libels of this description (which he did not mean to dispute, though it might be done by the authorities at present existing) it still must appear a little extraordinary that there should be such extreme soreness as to libels on one side of the question, and such supineness as to the infamous slanders circulated on the other. He should not have risen, had not the hon. baronet appeared to refer to some expressions used by him (Mr. D.) in another place. In no instance, and under no circumstances, would he forego the right of an English advocate to make any observation which the interests of his client seemed to demand, however exalted might be the personage to whom that observation might apply.
§ Sir M. Cholmeleysaid, he had made no allusion whatever to the learned member.
§ Mr. Denmancertainly thought the hon. baronet referred to some caricature connected with an observation he (Mr. D.) had made in another place, in which he had introduced the name of Nero.
§ The petition was ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed.