Mr. Humepresented three Petitions, the first from the inhabitants of London and its vicinity, the second from the inhabitants of the Metropolis and its vicinity, and the third (signed by 5,000 persons) from Manchester and Salford, stating, that the petitioners viewed with horror and alarm the prosecution of Mr. Taylor by the Society for the Suppression of Vice, and praying, that no legal restraint may be laid on the expression of religious opinions, and that the Rev. Robert Taylor may be liberated from confinement.
§ Mr. James E. Gordonsaid, that as allusion had been made by the petitioners to the Society for the Suppression of Vice, he felt called upon to declare, that it did not deserve the name of a persecuting society. It was formed, first for the suppression of the trade in licentious publications; it had, in consequence, instituted about seventy prosecutions, most of which had succeeded, and some of which were for very gross offences; 2nd, it was an object of the Society to repress blasphemous publications, and it had succeeded in shutting upwards of thirty places where such vile publications were sold. The 3rd object of the Society was, to enforce the laws for the observance of the Sabbath, and it had instituted upwards of 2,000 summary prosecutions, many of them at the instance of Magistrates and Clergymen. Probably, after this detail of the proceedings of the Society, there was 1133 no occasion to make any further defence for it, than to say it had numbered among its members and supporters many of the most eminent persons, and that there could be no possible imputations on the subscribers when called on to act as Jurors or Magistrates.
Mr. Hume, on moving that the petition be printed, said, he had yet to learn what right that Society had to set itself up as a conservator of the public morals. It was the duty of the Law Officers of the Crown to prosecute when there was a necessity for it, and such a power ought not to be exercised by any Society. The Government ought to put an end to it. It would be better for the people to maintain an officer for the purpose, for no man would tolerate or encourage a person in selling obscene prints and publications; but the great evil of the society was, those summary prosecutions for non-observance of the Sabbath; many of the members, probably, deserved as much to be prosecuted for breaking the Sabbath as those they prosecuted. He should like very much to see the names of all the subscribers.
§ Mr. James E. Gordonsaid, he would gratify the hon. Member, by presenting him at once with a list of the members of the Society. The hon. Gentleman had said, no man would encourage the sale of obscene publications, but then he desired the prosecutions should be conducted by a public officer. Experience, however, had shewn, that those persons were not diligent in searching out and punishing offences of that kind. The Society had the same right to prosecute as many other existing societies, which combined to protect property. It was only of late that efforts had been made in that House to protect blasphemy and obscenity.
§ Mr. Huntwas no advocate for blasphemy, but he was an enemy to prosecutions for religious opinions. He believed the House would have many more petitions to liberate Mr. Taylor, who, at least, ought to be removed to a prison where the regulations were not so severe.
Mr. Pringlesaid, the Society had not prosecuted for religious opinions, but for outrages on public morals. He could not agree with the hon. member for Middlesex, that a public prosecutor would be able to prosecute such offences. Such an officer could not uphold the laws of public decency so well as a society constituted for the purpose.
Sir John Sebrightrose, in consequence of the remark made by the hon. member for Dundalk, to assert, that he had never heard any one advocate blasphemy, or encourage it, in that House. Some of the petitions presented by the hon. Member he could by no means approve of, but none of them went so far as to justify the remark of the hon. Gentleman.
§ Petition to be printed.
Mr. Humepresented a Petition from certain Inhabitants of Marylebone, complaining of the enforcement of the penalties of the Act, the 16th George 2nd, c. 23, against the hawkers of cheap publications in the streets of the metropolis, and praying, that the individuals at present in prison in default of the payment of such penalties, should be enlarged by an Act of Indemnity.
§ Colonel Sibthorpcautioned the House against the dangerous tendency of the publications in question, and observed, that the ingenuity of some individuals to defraud the revenue had been exerted to such a degree, that political information had been printed upon cotton handkerchiefs, in order to evade the stamp-duties on newspapers.
Sir Francis Vincentobserved, that the more legislative enactments were made on the subject, the greater would be the ingenuity which would be exercised to defeat them. It was in vain for the Legislature to run a race of that kind with the people, for it was sure to be defeated.
Mr. Wilkssaid, that if the hon. member for Middlesex would bring in a bill to amend the Hawkers' and Pedlars' Act, it should have his cordial support.
Mr. Alderman Woodsaid, that one of the individuals to whom this petition referred, and who had been imprisoned in the Compter, had been amply indemnified by the unusual good feeding which he got there.
Mr. Humesaid, that the only proper way to deal with the subject was, to repeal those laws which prevented persons who were able and willing to undertake the task, from answering in equally cheap publications, the dangerous doctrines which the publications now under discussion frequently advocated.
§ Petition to be printed.