Lords Sitting of 29 December 1819

NEWSPAPER STAMP DUTIES BILL.
On the order of the day for the third reading of this bill,
Lord Erskinesaid, he could not suffer the bill to pass without declaring his opinion in a very few words, and putting it on the Journals by his protest. He felt as much as those who were the authors of the measure, the necessity of supporting the authority and of maintaining the dignity of parliament, but he was confident
1590
that a law so unnecessary and so inconsistent with the principles of public freedom, would produce a quite contrary effect. From the beginning of his life, he had uniformly exerted himself for the liberty of the press, having always considered the people as degraded whilst the government was contemptible and insecure, in proportion as it had been fettered; but the bill before them went beyond any attack upon it, which he ever expected to witness. What, for instance, could be said for the clause requiring recognizances, which seemed to consider every printer as a suspected and dangerous person? Could any thing but discontent and disaffection be expected to follow from such an unprecedented violation of the constitution? And after all the impolicy and injustice of this unaccountable innovation, it would, be of no manner of use, as the restraints, in many ways quite obvious, might and would be invaded, as the periods of the proscribed publications, and the number of sheets in them might be altered. Lord E. concluded by saying, that he was the more earnest that such a law should be rejected by the House of Lords, as it had been hitherto respected even by those who unfortunately distrusted and libelled the other House of Parliament. To have the confidence and affection of an enlightened people was the only possible way of securing their obedience.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, that the bill would only affect publications sold for sixpence or less. Those, therefore, that were of a higher price, were wholly exempt from its operation. As to the objection taken by the learned lord, that sureties had only hitherto been called upon to give security against a specific act, he would beg leave to observe, that with regard to a numerous and important class of persons, he meant the publicans, the principle of calling for security for their good behaviour had been long recognized and acted upon. Nor could he discover any objection to the measure of securities required under the present bill, considering the circumstances which had rendered it necessary. It was not directed against the respectable body of booksellers and printers, but against those persons who had intruded themselves into that class, and who, having neither property, respectability, nor responsibility, it became essentially necessary to prevent the mischievous consequences, that were daily increasing, of the publications sent

1591
forth by them, to call upon them imperatively for security for their good conduct.
Lord Ellenboroughagreed as to the necessity that existed for passing the present bill; a necessity arising from those mischievous publications which had been sent forth at a cheap rate to delude and deceive the lowest classes of the people. It was not against the respectable press that this bill was directed, but against a pauper press, which, administering to the prejudices and the passions of a mob, was converted to the basest purposes, which was an utter stranger to truth, and only sent forth a continual stream of falsehood and malignity, its virulence and its mischief heightening as it proceeded. If he was asked whether he would deprive the lowest classes of society of all political information? he would say, that he saw no possible good to be derived to the country from having statesmen at the loom and politicians at the spinning jenny. He differed from his learned friend in his view of this bill, considering it as imperatively called for by that mischievous abuse of the public press, those cheap publications, which were comparatively of modern date, and which had for a time derived impunity and increased in virulence and malignity, in consequence of the acquittal of Hone. The mischief arising from them in the deception and delusion practised upon the lowest classes, by means of the grossest and most malignant falsehoods, was such, that it threatened the most material injury to the best interests of the country, unless some means were devised of stemming its torrent. Conceiving that the regulations contained in this measure would have the effect of extinguishing this gross and flagrant abuse of the press, that he felt it his duty to support the bill.
The bill was passed.

PROTEST AGAINST THE NEWSPAPER STAMP DUTIES BILL.
The following protest against the passing of the bill was entered on the Journals:
"Dissentient,
"1. Because, by the stamps imposed by this bill, and by its further directing recognizances to be entered into by the printers and publishers of the pamphlets and papers therein mentioned, and in sums so large and disproportionate to the probable credit of such persons, or the profits of such small publications, it is
1592
manifest (and has, indeed, been not very indistinctly admitted), that a discouragement, amounting to almost a prohibition, is thus suddenly aimed at a very large and often useful branch of trade.
"2. Because this tacit interdict has not been justified, nor even attempted to be supported, in such a manner as the House of Lords, invested with the only certain means of arriving at truth, was, in my opinion, imperiously bound to have resorted to, before it consented to a law abridging, in any manner whatsoever, the freedom of the press.
"3. Because the great mass of British subjects have no surer means of being informed of what passes in parliament, and in the courts of justice, or of the general transactions of the world, than through cheap publications, within their means of purchase; and I desire to express my dissent from that principle and opinion, that the safety of the state, and the happiness of the multitude in the laborious conditions of life, may be best secured by their being kept in ignorance of political controversies and opinions; as I hold, on the contrary, that the government of this country can only continue to be secure whilst it conducts itself with fidelity and justice, and as all its acts shall, as heretofore, be thoroughly known and understood by all classes of the people.
"4. Because this obstruction to the sale and circulation of small periodical publications is not confined to those of a political character, but most unaccountably extends to all such as shall contain any public news, intelligence or occurrence, or any remark or observation thereon; a description which most obviously comprehends and involves all the transactions of human life upon which reasonable beings, (putting national freedom wholly out of the question) can seek or desire to communicate with one another.
"5. Because it might be admitted, in perfect consistency with these objections to this bill, that considerable numbers of the publications in question may have been mischievous; but no evidence, which I can accept as satisfactory, has been laid before the House of the extent of such abuses, nor that the laws had been duly put in force to suppress them, had been found to be ineffectual or insufficient, but on the contrary, that not one information; or indictment had been filed by the attorney-general throughout the whole of the year 1818, against any printer or pub-

1593
lisher of a libel of any description whatsoever, and that in the present year following it, no person, except Richard Carlile, has been brought to trial and convicted.
"6. Because, most earnestly as I desire to see the government of this country in all its branches, looked up to with reverence and affection, and all libellers, who maliciously asperse it, brought to speedy constitutional punishments, I am compelled, by long experience in the courts of justice, to question the expediency of any other remedies for such abuses, but a vigorous execution of the ordinary laws; since before the passing of the Libel act, when the province of juries over libels had been annihilated by judicial usurpation, the licentiousness of the press increased beyond the example of former times, until libellers lost their popularity and safety when the people were restored to the privilege of judging them, and of protecting those who were innocent.
"7. Lastly, Because I am of opinion that the remedies enacted by this bill to repress the publications in question, will be found to be as inefficacious as they are inconsistent with the principles of the constitution; since, when the smaller printers and publishers are on a sudden thrown out of bread, by the impossibility of finding sureties for such large sums, to be levied by the alarming process of extent, and not upon any facts which such sureties can anticipate, but upon uncertain opinions regarding undefined offences, their principals may have recourse to methods of delivering themselves from the operation of the law. They may enter into larger partnerships or combinations for continuing their periodical works, by small advancements of price and changes in the periods of publication, which will probably be more eagerly sought for after the disappointed interdict, and parliament, if it pursues its object, may be driven to carry on a most unpopular siege against the press, increasing at every step the difficulties to be encountered, and conferring popularity upon a few mischievous writers, who would otherwise sink into obscurity or contempt.
(Signed) ERSKINE."
Both Houses adjourned to Tuesday the 15th of February.

DEMISE OF HIS MAJESTY KING GEORGE III.
On Sunday, January 30, 1820, in pursuance of the statutes 7 and
1594
8 William 3rd, c. 15, and 6 Anne, c. 7, which enact, that if the parliament be, at the time of the king's death, separated by adjournment or prorogation, it shall, notwithstanding, assemble immediately, both Houses met, pro formâ, and adjourned. On the following day, they again met. The oaths were administered to the Lords by Mr. Cowper, the chief clerk. The Lord High Steward attended in the long gallery, and administered the oaths of allegiance to such members of the House of Commons as were in attendance. After this, the Speaker took the chair of the House, and immediately proceeded to take the customary oaths; after which, those members who had previously taken the oaths of allegiance before the high steward, came to the table, and were re-sworn. The swearing-in of members continued until the 2nd of February, when both Houses adjourned to the 17th.