§ Viscount Melbourne, in moving that the House resolve itself into Committee on the Stamp Duties Bill, said, I beg to call your Lordships' attention very shortly to the principles and the objects as well as the causes and reasons from which a necessity for such a measure as that to which I refer has arisen, and to the great importance that exists of not throwing any hindrance or impediment in the way of its passing into a law. The object of this Bill is to reduce the duty on newspapers. The. duty on news- 968 papers is 4d., with a discount of twenty per cent., which reduces the duty in fact to 3d. and one-fifth. That duty it is intended to reduce to one penny. On the present amount of the stamp-duty, which yielded a revenue of 450,000l., the loss, if the calculation was made on the present sale of stamps, would be 300,000l.; but as it is naturally calculated that there will be a very considerable increase in the number of stamps, that will very considerably reduce the loss to the revenue, which will be still further reduced by the additional duty which will accrue from the increased consumption of paper used for printing newspapers. These are the circumstances attending this change with regard to the revenue of the country; but I am sure your Lordships will feel that there are other circumstances connected with it—when we consider the nature of the press of this country, the power which it possesses, and the influence and effect which it has on the morals, temper, feelings, and character of the people—I am satisfied, I say, that when your Lordships reflect on the subject you will see that there are many other considerations involved in it far more important than its pecuniary and financial relations, though, undoubtedly, these are not to be laid out of view. The object of this measure is, in the first place, to take off the heavy burthen on the public press of this country, and to facilitate the general dissemination of knowledge—to facilitate the speedy transmission of accurate intelligence, and, in short, to afford every sort of advantage to that liberty of the press against which I have not known any one, for many years past, venture to raise his voice either in this or in the other House of Parliament. But your Lordships need not be told that one of the evils of the present system is the existence of a contraband trade in newspapers, and that publications of this nature have been carried on for many years past, as those are facts to which the attention of your Lordships has already been called. Your Lordships' attention was directed to this subject particularly during the last Session of Parliament, by a noble and learned Lord, whose absence during the present Session is greatly to be lamented, and who strongly urged, that the present reduction, if not the total abolition, of the duty should take place, in order to improve the character of that press, and in order to take away from those engaged in that contraband trade, and who frequently adopted 969 a tone and language which were highly to be lamented, those advantages and profits which they at present reap, and to give to those who may be disposed to combat such opinions a fair opportunity of doing so, as far as it could be afforded, by allowing them to enter into a fair competition in that market in which publications of a different style and nature now enjoy a protection. Our attention has also been called, during the last three years, by some other Members of your Lordships' House, who read to us from publications of the unstamped press certain passages of a very violent and inflammatory character, and charged the Government with great remissness and dereliction of duty in not having taken all the measures in our power for putting it down. I do think that such a charge against the Government is, in no respect, well founded. The Government has gone, at least to the extent of its powers in this matter, but the state of the law does not enable the public prosecutor to cope with the vendors of these unstamped publications. There are three Acts of Parliament in existence directed against unstamped publications; by one the printers or publishers are liable under an Exchequer process; there is another Act directed against the sellers of these publications; and a third against those who are found hawking them for sale, imposing on them certain penalties, and in default of payment, prescribing certain periods of confinement. But such regulations of the law are rendered altogether inoperative and inefficient for their purpose by the impossibility of producing evidence on which to justify conviction. Not having the power of entering on the premises, it is perfectly impossible to prove the printing and publishing, particularly the printing, and it is almost impossible to detect the real name of the printer. There are only two unstamped papers to which the real names of the printers are annexed. These are names which, I have no doubt, were I to mention them, would be perfectly familiar to your Lordships. The individuals to whom they belong have been prosecuted over and over again—they have undergone sentences of imprisonment of no inconsiderable duration—they have been visited with infliction of penalties, which have either been paid for them by subscription or which it has been found impossible to levy; and such, my Lords, is either the profit which they derive in that way, or the determination with which they pursue their career, 970 that I believe these persons have been in no respect deterred from proceeding in the course by any prosecutions under which they have suffered. With respect to the sellers it is still more difficult to carry into effect the law which has been laid down for their punishment. An obscure shop is opened in an obscure part of the town, in which a woman or child is placed, and is almost impossible to discover the real owner of the shop; and if the name should be ultimately ascertained, it turns out, in all probability, to be that of a person who can without difficulty change his residence—who is here to-day, and gone to-morrow; or who opens a shop in another obscure part of the town. Thus is the law which provides that the summons should be personally served defeated; and the only mode of proving the publication obviated by the person in the shop refusing (as is the case at present) to sell to any but regular and acknowledged customers. With respect to the third power which the law confers, that of suing persons found selling those publications in the streets, that power has been exercised in the most vigorous though not in the most effectual manner. Officers have been employed for the purpose; they have taken up I know not how many persons during the last five months; they have apprehended three hundred persons, most of them boys, for vending these unstamped publications. Though these persons have not been committed, a return has been moved for in the House of Commons, which did not give a very satisfactory account of the number confined under these laws. The first return referred to the year 1831, and gave as the number of persons committed, 295; and the last return showed the number committed from March, 1834, to the period at which it was made, to be 213 persons. But the last return entirely omitted the years 1832 and 1833, which their Lordships were aware were two years the most rife and productive in this species of publication. Therefore, it is not probable that less than 800 to 1,000 persons have been committed during the last four or five years under this law. There is no doubt but that these unstamped publications have increased to an extent which it is impossible to ascertain with correctness; but it has been computed, by those most conversant with the subject, that during the last twelve months the sale has increased from 50,000 to 250,000. This I know, that when Mr. 971 Cleave's printing-house was entered, on a day previous to that of publication, and the officers had a right to enter it because they were informed that an unregistered press was at work, it was discovered that 40,000 copies were prepared for publication, and the press was employed in throwing off several hundreds by the hour. Now this Bill, my Lords, is intended to put an end to this state of things and, by diminishing the duty, to diminish the temptation to publish unstamped and illegal newspapers. It provides the same protection for collecting this branch of the revenue as is given for the protection of other branches of the revenue, and which will be found, I have no doubt, effectual for the purpose; for nothing else can be found effectual. It proposes that, on information, a warrant can be issued empowering the officer to enter the premises of the printer in the day, and to do so by breaking open the door if necessary. Thus I think these publications will be greatly lessened by this measure, because, on the one hand, it diminishes the temptation to issue them; and, on the other hand, it arms the revenue with sufficient power to enforce the law. I am perfectly satisfied that this will be the effect of the proposed change in the law. Your Lordships will not fail to remember that if this Bill do not pass into a law, the present state of things will necessarily continue, and the evil will probably become worse, and these unstamped publications will increase. Besides, if on the present occasion your Lordships should think fit to reject this measure, the effect will be, to throw the whole trade, which expects the proposed remission of duty, into a state of disturbance, whilst, I am persuaded, as I have already said, that if you sanction it, it will extinguish the present unstamped publications. I thought it necessary to refer thus briefly to the existing state of the law and to the probable effects of the proposed measure, at the same time I have pointed out the consequences of not passing it. I now move that the House resolve itself into a Committee on this Bill.—Motion agreed to; House in Committee; Clauses 1 to 10 agreed to.
§ On the 11th Clause (which enacts, that a return of all the proprietors of newspapers shall be made to the Stamp-office half-yearly) being read,
§ Lord Lyndhurstsaid, he admitted to the fullest extent, the importance of this measure, which had for one of its objects, 972 the putting an end to the unstamped press, and the giving just security to the fair and honest trader. He admitted, that it was the bounden duty of their Lordships to prevent that violation of the law which the noble Viscount had adverted to, and which had continued for too long a time. He did not rise to oppose that part of the Bill which was calculated to put a stop to such illegal proceedings, but the noble Viscount would recollect that he had some time since stated his insuperable objection to the clause which they were now called on to consider, and it was his intention to move, that it should be expunged from the Bill. His objection extended also to the following clause, and to schedule B. annexed to the Bill, all relating to the same subject—the registration of all the proprietors of a newspaper at the Stamp-office half-yearly. He should state in a few words what was the effect of these clauses. By them it was enacted that the name of every proprietor of a newspaper, however numerous those proprietors might be, together with his occupation, in addition, and his place of residence, should be registered at the Stamp-office. Not only should his name be registered at the Stamp-office, but his share and interest in the newspaper must also be stated. And these clauses further provided, that in case of any transfer of a share, or of the transfer of any part of a share, such transfer should be notified at each registration half-yearly. Now, a system more arbitrary, more inquisitorial, more unjust, or more unnecessary, was never resorted to than that which was countenanced by this Bill—a proposition of the truth of which he was sure he should be able to convince their Lordships before he sat down. He would, in the first place, call their Lordships' attention to the regulations that now existed with respect to the newspaper press. It was by those regulations provided, that the name of the printer and publisher should be certified at the Stamp-office. It was necessary, also, that the names of two proprietors, holding as large shares as any of the other proprietors, should be registered. Previously to the year 1798 it was extremely difficult, when it was found necessary to bring an action on account of libellous matter contained in a newspaper, to ascertain against whom the proceedings were to be directed, and, therefore, it was that the Act of 38th George 3rd was passed. The provisions 973 of that Act rendered necessary those proceedings to which he had just referred—namely, that the printer and publisher should register their names at the Stamp-office, and that Act had been, their Lordships observed, in operation now for a period of nearly forty years. That law had been uniformly found effective; no instance had occurred in which an action was brought against a newspaper where there was any difficulty in finding the proper defendants. Now, he would ask, what took place at that time? The party then in opposition—he would not say the Whigs, because he understood this term, on a former evening, was considered offensive—most strenuously and most vigorously opposed the Bill. They were at that time, it is true, candidates for power; circumstances had since occurred which had raised them to power, and with the alteration of circumstances, their feelings with respect to that Bill appeared also to have changed, for they were now ready to go a great deal further than was contemplated by the Bill which they had so strongly opposed. In 1820, another Act was passed, by which security was to be given to the amount of 400l. on the part of those commencing newspapers, in order to meet any demand that might be consequent on the event of a verdict obtained, either by an individual in the way of civil action, or following a criminal prosecution at the suit of the law officers of the Crown. That was the state of the law at present. Now, as the law stood, it was clearly pointed out against whom proceedings should be had, either in case of action or of criminal prosecution; and he would say with confidence, that this state of the law had been considered a perfect security to every class of his Majesty's subjects. Indeed it was quite clear, that that security was considered sufficient, if they looked to the conduct of his Majesty's Government at the present day; because, when this Bill was introduced to the House of Commons, and until it had advanced to the very late stage, the clauses to which he now objected were not brought forward. Their Lordships would find, that the provisions of the Act 38 George 3rd were introduced into the Bill now before them, almost in the same terms in which they were originally worded; so that it would appear that the noble Viscount, who no doubt, had been consulted on this subject, considered 974 that the Act, as originally framed, was amply sufficient for the object which it contemplated. This being so, their Lordships would naturally inquire how these clauses came to be added to the measure in a very late stage of the Bill. From the votes placed on their Lordships' Table, and from other sources, he arrived at the conclusion that they had not been introduced on the suggestion of his Majesty's Government, but that they had been brought forward by some individual, or body of individuals, in the other House of Parliament, who professed extremely liberal principles, though he could not reconcile such principles with the propositions which they had advocated. When the noble Viscount was last in possession of office, some observations fell from him as to the necessity of upholding the Constitution, not by the influence of party, but with reference to the general support of the country. In that principle he coincided; and he agreed with the noble Viscount that nothing was so likely to endanger the Constitution of the country as when a feeble Government yielded to suggestions, and adopted suggestions, of which they did not themselves approve, coming from any section of their supporters to whom they were obliged to bow, or otherwise to quit their situations. He had already stated to their Lordships that the Whig party in 1798 opposed a Bill on the subject of newspapers, which he contended was a wise and salutary measure. It was opposed by Mr. Tierney, Mr. Sheridan, Sir William Pulteney, and Mr. Hobhouse, and also by another Member of the Lower House, to whom he would not have called particular attention on this occasion if it had not been for his name and station. The individual to whom he alluded was Lord William Russell. That noble Lord gave his decided opposition to the measure. He was of opinion, that if the editor and actual proprietor were made responsible, there was no reason why persons giving their capital in aid of a newspaper should be involved in any legal proceedings connected with it; and he emphatically stated, "that this Bill was an insidious blow at the liberty of the press." Such was Lord William Russell's opinion of that measure. The other individual to whose opinion he wished to refer was Mr. Sheridan. That gentleman said, that "unless a number of persons were to join 975 in the establishment of a paper, it would often be impossible, from the capital required, to establish one at all; and such a regulation would certainly discourage people from having any share in a newspaper." Now he (Lord Lyndhurst) would aver, that no one man was better acquainted with the newspaper business than Mr. Sheridan; that gentleman went on to say, "He should be glad to know whether by this it was meant that if Government paid a paper for abusing the opposition, the Treasury, by so assisting to keep up the paper, was to be considered as a proprietor, and to be responsible for the consequences? If so, it would tend to reconcile him to the measure now proposed." He did not participate in any feeling of that kind, and if any such principle were established as that which Mr. Sheridan spoke of, it certainly would not reconcile him to this measure. In consequence of the discussions on this measure many alterations were made. The then Attorney-General, Lord Eldon, wished to have the names of three proprietors registered, but the Speaker (Mr. Addington) considered, that that was going too far; that it was asking for more than was necessary for the object which the Bill had in view, and in consequence, two proprietors were substituted for three. Such was the proceeding in 1798, and the Act had remained in force from that time to the present. Its provisions were absolutely, in the first instance, embodied in the Bill now before their Lordships. Now what was the present Bill? It enacted, that the name of every proprietor, his residence, his occupation or addition, all circumstances connected with him—the amount of his share, the transfer of that share, or any portion of that share, should be registered every six months at the Stamp-office. If this proposition came from the quarter which he understood it did, it only afforded one more instance, that persons most clamorous about liberty, who called most loudly for the freedom of the press, who were Radical and root-and-branch men—it only afforded another instance that persons of this description, when they had any object in view, were more abitrary, more tyrannical, more grinding, and more unsparing, than any other set of individuals whatever. What Mr. Sheridan said was perfectly correct—a good newspaper could not be established without large property, which must be derived from a number of individuals; there 976 must be a most extensive correspondence abroad; there must be a very considerable establishment at home; a large sum would necessarily be required for literary assistance, and the outlay of capital under all these heads must be very great. In fact, it was quite evident that, with a first-rate paper, there must be at the same time, in order to ensure its success, an immense expenditure of capital as well as an immense income. Such an undertaking could not be supported by three or four individuals; a great number of individuals must necessarily hold shares in it who could not by possibility have anything to do with the management of the concern. Many of those persons would reside far from the metropolis—many of them would of necessity be women and children: the property would, in some instances, be subject to marriage settlements; in others it would be held as security for debt, or it might become the subject of mortgage; in short, it might be disposed of in a great variety of shapes by those who had nothing whatever to do with the direction of the newspaper. Now, let their Lordships pass this law, and what, he asked, would be the consequence? Why, it would be this—that each and every of the shareholders would become liable to every possible species of attack and annoyance—nay, they would be subjected to punishment for publications with which they had no concern—of which they knew nothing, and of which, from their situation, it was impossible they could know anything. What, then, would follow from this? The consequence would necessarily be, that individuals would immediately endeavour to withdraw their capital from this species of employment, and they would invest it in other transactions where they would be less exposed to trouble and annoyance. This must of necessity lead to a great depreciation in property of that kind; and it had been stated to him by a most respectable individual (Mr. Baldwin, one of the proprietors of the Standard newspaper) that if the Bill passed in its present shape, it would deteriorate his property fifty per cent., and would operate in the same way with respect to all property of a similar description. That being the case, it was quite clear that such a revulsion in the value of property would, when individuals were endeavouring to get rid of their shares, prevent other people coming forward to purchase; and; he would ask, 977 what was this to be done for? Was not the law sufficient for every fair purpose of prosecution as it stood at present? If a libel were published, they had defendants; and if a verdict were returned for the plaintiff, they had a security by the Act of 1820 for whatever damages might be awarded. Why, then, should they countenance this sort of inquisition, to which no other species of property was exposed? Why should they, by passing these clauses, interfere with this large mass of property; clauses which, he would say, were unnecessary for the purpose which the Bill was intended to effect, and which Government themselves, it was evident, did not conceive to be necessary, because they had not introduced them. The country was deeply interested in the conduct of the public press; it was deeply interested in its respectability and purity; and who, he demanded, would embark in an employment of that kind if these clauses were passed? He would confidently say, that none would so embark but persons of little property or character; they would very soon have a press of a much lower scale in point of intelligence, information, and talent. He would add, when he made that remark, that nothing was of greater importance to the country than the keeping and placing the press on a just and firm basis. He did not blame Ministers for having originally proposed these clauses; they certainly had not introduced them; but he did blame them for having weakly and rashly given way to the suggestions of persons who, as it were, forced those clauses upon the Ministers. Some persons were of opinion, that the public should know the author of every article that appeared in a newspaper. He would not discuss that point now; much, he admitted, might be said on both sides. But it was unnecessary for him to argue that point, because the Bill contained nothing to require any observations on the subject. So far as that point was concerned the Bill did nothing whatsoever. It had been said, that they had no right to interfere with these clauses—that this was a money Bill, and that they could make no amendment in it without infringing on the privileges of the House of Commons. He, however, denied the justice of that allegation. The clauses which he wished to be expunged were not money clauses, but clauses of police and regulation. They were clauses which referred to the 978 administration of justice and police. The Bill contained the clauses in question, in addition to the money clauses; and were they to be told, that, leaving the money clauses unnoticed, not objecting to them in the slightest degree, they had no right to touch those regulation clauses? If they were told, that they could not alter clauses of this nature—that they could not in any way interfere with them, because they formed part of a money Bill, then he would say, that they were deprived of a great part of their most important privileges, and the sooner they came to a right understanding on the question the better. He was not at all averse to the rest of the Bill, and if these were money clauses, and that any alteration of them would be an infringement of the privileges of the House of Commons, there was still a remedy to his Majesty's Government. Let them send up another Bill in the same form as the present, omitting these objectionable clauses, and that Bill might be passed; or they might do better by sending up a Bill taking off the duty altogether, and not keeping up the complicated machinery and the extensive establishment necessary for levying the paltry tax of 1d. on each newspaper. He contended, that their Lordships were entitled to reject these clauses. They had nothing whatever to do with the money clauses,—they were mere clauses of regulation and of police, and were contrary to every principle of justice—contrary to the principle recognised and adopted in the year 1798—contrary to the policy of his Majesty's Government itself, and they had only found their way into the Bill in consequence of the weakness of his Majesty's Ministers in listening to the dictation of others in the Commons' House of Parliament. On these plain and simple grounds he would now move the rejection of the 11th Clause.
§ The Lord Chancellorsaid, it was not his intention to enter into the character of the opposition, and certainly not into the state of parties and politics, in the year 1798, a question which had been raised by his noble and learned Friend who had just sat down. His noble and learned Friend had described the clause as one of the greatest tyranny and oppression. Now, of what did the clause consist? It consisted of a provision that every proprietor of a newspaper should be bound to have his name registered, that newspapers should not be authorised to pub- 979 lish until the information was generally announced. Was that a provision new in principle—was it a principle unknown until the year 1798? His noble and learned Friend, whose accuracy of information was great on all subjects, and particularly on this matter, to which it would appear he had turned his attention, had omitted (perhaps by accident) to state the provisions of the 28th Clause of the Act of 1798. True it was, that by that Act it was considered necessary that the two largest proprietors only should be announced to the public by affidavit, to be filed at the Stamp-office; true it was, that this regulation was held to be a sufficient security to the public; yet the Act to which he referred went a step further, for it provided, by the 28th Clause, that if any person or persons should file a bill in any court of equity for the discovery of the name or names of any proprietor, editor, printer, or publisher of a newspaper, or for the discovery of any matter relating to the printing and publishing thereof, in order to enable him or them to carry on any action or actions of damages for slander or libel, it should not be lawful for the defendant or defendants to plead or demur to the bill, but that they should be compelled to make the discovery thereby required. Was not this, then, oppression—was not this tyranny—was not this invading the rights of persons holding property of this description? He addressed himself to the argument of his noble and learned Friend, that it was tyranny and oppression not to permit proprietors of newspapers to conceal themselves from the public. Such formed no part of the scheme of 1798; and what was the present clause? Why this: the Act of 1798 having laid it down as a rule and principle, that although only two proprietors were required to be registered, means were afforded by which parties aggrieved could get at all the proprietors. The clause now under consideration provided, that a return should, from time to time, be made of the names of all the proprietors—in short, that there should be registered at the Stamp-office a declaration, containing the names of all the proprietors. It could not be denied that this was a much less expensive mode of proceeding than by the machinery of the Bill of 1798; and were not the charges of tyranny and oppression quite as applicable to that Act as to the present measure? He therefore repelled those severe terms applied to a provision which really was only a renewal of the principle to be found in the Act of 1798. In short, while it followed in principle the remedy 980 given to the public in that Act, the clause in question effected that object in a more consistent and less expensive manner. His noble and learned Friend had stated, that by striking out these clauses the Bill would not be injured so far as to make it necessary for the House of Commons to refuse to entertain a Bill of this character so altered. Now, if his noble and learned Friend should be mistaken in this assumption—if the asserted privileges of the House of Commons were such as to induce them to regard the Bill as a money bill thus altered, the effect of the adoption of the proposition of his noble and learned Friend would be to lose a Bill so material to the interests of the public press—a Bill containing, in other respects, provisions in which his noble and learned Friend entirely concurred. If there had been any evil in the converse of the principle established by the Act of 1798—if it were essential to the well-being of a well-regulated press that persons engaged in newspapers should have the means of concealing from the world the knowledge of their being proprietors, that might be an objection to any measure which went to alter that principle; but when their Lordships found that the clause only provided a different means of attaining the same object, and that there was no alteration of a principle already established, he thought the House would not be induced to run the risk of losing a measure which he believed the press itself considered highly essential to its interests.
§ Lord Wynfordcommenced by observing, that reference having been made to the possibility of an infringement of the acknowledged privileges of the other House of Parliament by the rejection of the clause now under consideration, he would venture to state, that the House of Commons had in-fringed upon their Lordships' privileges by the insertion into this Bill of such a clause as that which his noble and learned Friend had objected to. The House was debarred from exercising its discretion as to the propriety or otherwise of these regulations, because there were also money clauses in the Bill, and he for one contended that these matters of regulation ought to have been made the subject of a distinct and separate Bill. They had been introduced, however, in this Bill for no other purpose than to prevent their Lordships from exercising their discretion upon them, and, if it so thought fit, of striking them out. This House ought to be as jealous of its privileges, as the House of Commons were justly 981 jealous of any infringement of its powers and privileges. It was, however, impossible for any man looking at these clauses not to say that they greatly infringed upon the liberty of the press. His noble and learned Friend who had spoken last stated, that there was no oppression in these clauses, because the same thing had been done in the clause contained in the Act of 1798. There was a great difference between the clauses objected to in this Bill and those provided by the Act adverted to. There was a great difference between them, and his noble and learned Friend had touched but lightly on a very important part of the clause now before the Committee. When his noble and learned Friend opposite talked of the luxury of a Bill of discovery, he omitted to state, that in the Act of 1798 was provided a guard which was not to be found in the present Bill. The Act of 1798 contained a guard against the use which was to be made of the discovery when obtained, and it provided that the discovery was to be used only for the purpose of supporting civil rights, and by the clause now objected to by his noble and learned Friend behind him, the information to be obtained at the Stamp-office might be used in support of criminal prosecutions. He admitted that there was a difference between the 11th Clause and that which in the 38th of Geo. 3rd permitted the certificate of the three names registered to be given in evidence; but if the list of proprietors could not itself be made evidence, there would be no difficulty, after getting the names of the most wealthy, opulent, and respectable proprietors, to obtain evidence against any of them by calling any one of the parties by whom the list or return was to be made up, and then asking him in a court of justice whether A B, or C D, or any other name included in the list, was not a proprietor of the particular journal against which the criminal proceedings were then under trial. He agreed with Mr. Sheridan in thinking that this would lead to the complete destruction of the liberty of the press, and would place that engine entirely in the hands of the Crown. He was sure that neither the present Attorney-General, nor the Government to which that hon. and learned Gentleman was attached, would allow such proceedings to occur; but still the House was not to provide for any particular Ministry, but ought rather to secure the liberty of the press and the liberty of individuals. He was not sure but that the time might come, when under these powers in- 982 dividuals might be selected for prosecution in consequence of the part they might have taken in politics. He had heard with great satisfaction from the noble Viscount at the head of his Majesty's Government, that the public were deeply interested in the respectability of those who conducted the newspaper press of the present day; but he was of opinion that this respectability would be put an end to, if the clauses objected to were retained in the Bill. To carry on a newspaper required greater capital than generally fell to the lot of those by whom they were conducted, and it was necessary that in every firm there should be united those who contributed their talents and those who contributed the contents of their pockets. He did not mean to say that any man was disparaged by belonging to any of the principle newspapers of this country; on the contrary, he thought it was rather an honour than otherwise to be connected with them; but he was convinced that, independent of the fear of being liable to criminal prosecution, many men of respectability and capital would refuse to be concerned in newspaper property if their names were made public, as provided by these clauses. This publicity of the partners in a banking-house was not required, and why should a newspaper firm he differently treated? He admitted that it was fit and proper that the public should have some security for the good conduct of a journal, and he contended that this security was afforded by the laws as they now stood, and by these clauses was carried further than necessary. He further contended that it was of infinite importance that the most powerful engine, the press of this country, should be directed by persons of respectability. Nothing could be more dangerous than to drive men of property from a connexion with the newspaper press, the effect of which would be, to put the newspaper establishments into the hands of reckless men, who would exercise their powers to the injury and destruction of the country. On the whole, he conceived a greater mischief could not be done to this country than by passing this Bill in its present shape. He concurred in the view taken of this subject by Mr. Sheridan on the occasion when it was last under the consideration of Parliament. He proposed that the number of names registered should be limited to three: that number Was reduced by Mr. Addington to two; and it was remarked by the former, that if greater publicity was given, shares then worth 200l., would very soon not be worth sixpence. He 983 confessed he was surprised that the noble and learned Lord opposite should even have dreamt of supporting such a clause as this. He should rather have expected the noble and learned Lord, on behalf of his Majesty's Government, would have got up and said, "We are the same Whigs we were in 1798 We are no parties to these clauses; they form no part of our proposition, and that, though his Majesty's Government had erred in the Commons, we in this House will cure the error by striking these clauses out of the Bill." For their own sakes, he was much surprised that they had not done this, instead of leaving it to his noble and learned Friend to move the Amendment, in the propriety of which he most cordially concurred.
§ The Lord Chancellor, in explanation, said, that though the return of names could not be used against the parties stated to be proprietors, yet it would merely give information who they were, and that information once obtained, there would be no difficulty in making a case against them. His noble and learned Friend opposite was not quite accurate in supposing that the clause in the act of 1798 had not the same effect, but after a most expensive and troublesome proceeding. Under the act of 1798 parties against whom a Bill of discovery was filed were compelled to make the disclosure after the expenses of the proceedings had been incurred.
§ Lord Wynfordobserved, that information so obtained could only be used in civil actions.
§ Lord Lyndhurstsaid, that a party filing a bill of discovery must do so at his own expense. His noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor) had, however, shown these clauses to be unnecessary at least, and therefore he thought their Lordships would have no difficulty as to the propriety of their rejection.
§ Viscount Melbourneadmitted, that this clause was not necessary for any purposes of revenue; but, at the same time, he begged most earnestly and anxiously to press on their Lordships' consideration the fact that any alteration in it would be fatal to this bill. He could assure their Lordships, that after reference to the authorities, there was but one opinion on that subject. It was for that very reason that he prefaced his motion for going into Committee with a short statement of the whole case, and he entreated their Lordships not to come to a vote under the 984 notion that it would be possible to repair the effects of that vote during the present Session of Parliament. The noble and learned Lord who had moved the amendment had said, "Bring in another Bill, and not only do that, but bring in a bill to repeal the whole of the stamp duty on newspapers." He (Viscount Melbourne) begged to ask if the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Wellington), and other noble Lords near him, were parties to that recommendation? It was bidding for popularity with a vengeance. The noble and learned Lord had said, that his Majesty's Government yielded to the Radicals. He would ask the noble and learned Lord, at whom was this recommendation levelled—what party it was intended to gain—whom to please—whom to satisfy? What was the meaning of that observation? It was an attempt to outrun his opponents in the race for popularity, and to take up circumstances which the noble and learned Lord thought favourable to himself. There was a great objection, however, to take off the whole stamp duty, as, if so, it would be impossible that newspapers could be transmitted through the Post-office, and therefore a tax in the shape of postage must be collected. Such a tax, so far from being fair or equitable, would give an advantage to those who read the newspapers in London over those who read them in the country. That was the reason why his Majesty's Government continued the duty on newspapers, and were not prepared to adopt the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord. It had been said that the registration of two proprietors had been always found sufficient for the security of the public. He had, however, been told that such was not the case, and that, on the contrary, solvent defendants had not always been found to answer for the damages given against them. Everybody knew, that a part of the stamped press in London indulged in great scurrillity and abuse; and he was informed such was the character of the registered proprietors, that when counsel was consulted as to the course to be pursued in reference to their scurrillous slanders, they advised proceedings to be abandoned, inasmuch as no damages would be recovered after verdict was obtained—that the plaintiffs would have to pay their own costs and get nothing by their action. He believed that the securities to the public already existing had 985 not been found to be effectual, and therefore it was, that this clause had been introduced into the present Bill. True, it was not contained in the original Bill, but had been proposed in the House of Commons, not resisted by any party there, but, on the contrary, very much acceded to and approved of by the whole of that House—even those who were supposed to act with the noble and learned Lord opposite, had offered no opposition to it when proposed to be introduced in Committee, and it was not till the third reading that the hon. Member for Berkshire did make some opposition to it; but, notwithstanding that, only fifteen Members voted with him on that occasion. The noble and learned Lord had said, that the press was a very extensive trade—that great capital was embarked in it; and he had asked why that trade was to be conducted on a different principle from any other. The noble and learned Lord had forgot, that in order to give security to the public, it was provided, in a Bill now on their Lordships' Table for the regulation of Joint-Stock Banks, that all the proprietors should be registered; all bankers were required to be registered at the Stamp-office, and he saw no reason why the same principle of security should not be extended to the great trade, as it was called, of the newspaper Press. Why should not the names of newspaper proprietors as well as those of other persons who employed their capital in other transactions and speculations be registered? The noble and learned Lord had said, that shares in newspapers were the subject of marriage settlements, and that females and minors in different parts of the country were interested in them, and therefore that this system of registration would be inconvenient. The noble Lord forgot that the same class of persons interested in speculations of a different character were required to be registered, and he could not see that it would injure the character of the Press if it were known who were its real conductors. The noble and learned Lord had said he respected very much the Whigs of former times. He would say that he entertained a very great respect for the Tories of former times, and he well remembered the doctrine urged with reference to this question by one of that party:
Ipse pater, media nimborum in nocte, coruscâ. Fulmina molitur dextrâ.986 It was this night-like mystery, in which these publishers were enveloped, that he wished to see removed. He desired to see the shade by which those who exercised such power and authority in the country were surrounded, dispelled. There could be no reason for their concealing themselves. The noble and learned Lord had himself spoken of the talent and the learning connected with the press of this country; and nobody could think it disgraceful or derogatory to be connected with the press. He also presumed, that it was impossible that any person would give assistance or lend his capital to a journal professing principles other than he himself entertained; it was, he took it for granted, impossible that a Conservative lent his aid to a Radical newspaper, or that a Radical applied his capital to a Conservative journal. He supposed, too, that it was perfectly impossible that the characters of these individuals could be injured by their names being divulged, except those, perhaps, who had gained notoriety by personal slander. He presumed it was not for these that the noble and learned Lord put himself forward on the present occasion. It was perfectly impossible that their Lordships could desire to shelter those who made a gain and a profit from the dissemination of private slander. It was not to be supposed hat such people were entitled to be screen d from the knowledge of the pub-lie; and if it had so happened that any fellow who had raised himself from a humble station in life to that of a Member for a county, who feared that his veracity might be impeached, or his vanity injured, by these discoveries, it was hardly necessary to legislate for that purpose, or for his protection. But he was most anxious to call to their Lordships' attention what the effect of the loss of this Bill might be on the country, on the state of the press, and on the future well-being of every thing that was connected with that subject. If there really was such an objection to this clause—if, as the noble and learned Lord had stated, the clause infringed on the liberty of the press, for which so much acute sensibility had been displayed by the other side of the House—if the clause were inconsistent with every principle of liberty, then certainly their Lordships would not consent to keep the clause in the Bill. That, however, was not his opinion. Dissenting as he did from the noble and learned Lord opposite, he thought their 987 Lordships ought to pause before they hazarded the fate of the measure by so rash and unadvised a step as that proposed by the noble and learned Lord.
§ The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that the noble Viscount had not stated any very strong reasons for the adoption of this clause, and it was quite obvious that the clause was what his noble and learned Friend near him had stated. It had been attached to a money bill in order to pass this provision which was directed against a certain number of individuals who were proprietors of newspapers. It was not at all necessary for the purposes of the tax; the noble Viscount did not propose it in the first instance, and did not now think it necessary to the Bill; but he urged their Lordships to adopt it, because it appeared to him that its rejection would be fatal to the Bill in another place. The noble Viscount had taunted his noble and learned Friend with suggesting another Bill, and had told them that another Bill could not be brought in. If another Bill could be brought in, in the name of God let their Lordships know the intention of the Government—let the noble Lord bring in his own measure, as originally framed, without the clauses. There was time, or if not, time could be given, for this proceeding. At all events, no answer whatever had been given to the observations which had fallen from both of his noble and learned Friends near him, unless the inquiry made as to whether he joined in their opinions could be considered as an answer to the objections they had raised. He should be sorry to put the Government to any inconvenience, but he considered it his duty to support the motion of his noble and learned Friend.
§ Lord Lyndhurstobserved, that the noble Viscount had adverted to a certain county Member. He presumed the noble Viscount meant the hon. Member for the county of Berks. The noble Viscount had insinuated that he wished to shelter that individual. Now, he begged to say, that he never saw that hon. Member, that he never spoke to him, that he never held any communication with him, and that he did not even know his person. With respect to what the noble Viscount had said, as to plaintiff's being unable to get the effect of their verdicts from slanderous publishers, he (Lord Lyndhurst) begged to observe, that must be the fault of the Solicitor of Stamps, for every printer and publisher was bound 988 to give a bond for 400l., with three sureties, to the Stamp-office authorities, who ought to look to the solvency of the parties before the publication was allowed to issue; and he (Lord Lyndhurst) never knew an instance in which a verdict was obtained against a newspaper to the amount of 400l. He must also remark that the clause under consideration was introduced late in the Session; its effect was not immediately and it was not until the third reading that its effect was known. The third reading took place in a thin house, consisting of less than sixty Members, and considerably after twelve o'clock at night. Under such circumstances, he thought their Lordships were not much inclined to agree to the clause.
§ The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, that if their Lordships could entertain any doubt as to what light these proposed alterations must be considered in in another place, they had had that doubt removed by the conduct of the noble and learned Lord. This House, it was true, had privileges, as well as the other House of Parliament, to maintain; and if the noble and learned Lord thought that this clause was a tack to this Bill, there was a prescribed course which he ought to have pursued: but the noble and learned Lord had not ventured to adopt the course which Lord Grenville pursued when a bill was sent up from the Commons for the regulation of trade—a Bill combining revenue and principles of general policy. Did Lord Grenville go into Committee on that bill, and propose alterations in the clauses? No; he was not a politician who chose this byway mode of proceeding; and he denounced that Bill as infringing on the privileges of this House, and he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) remembered well joining Lord Grenville in that opposition. There was no pretence for representing this clause as a tack. The clause merely regulated the mode in which the names of the proprietors of newspapers should be made known—the mode by which those who were answerable for the conduct of those newspapers should be ascertained; the clause was one of regulation only. He would not follow the noble and learned Lord through the events in the year 1798, to which he had alluded; that was a time, however, which the noble and learned Lord had said no man had a right to impute to him any politics whatever. At that time the 989 Act which had been alluded to was passed, and in it was to be found distinctly laid down the same principle of tyranny and oppression that the noble and learned Lord condemned in the present Bill, which, however, provided means by which the names of proprietors could be got at of a less expensive and troublesome character than the Bill of 1798. He entirely concurred in what had fallen from his noble Friends near him on the importance to be attached to the respectability of the press, and of the character of those who conducted it, and he believed that nothing could be more likely to add to that respectability, to contribute to that character, and so to raise the press in the estimation of the public, than if it were declared that the name of every individual connected with the press should be liable to become known. He believed, that there were a few men of high and honourable characters connected with the press of this country who felt no reluctance at their names being known by this or any other process. At all events, these clauses presented one of the best securities that was contained in the Bill for the maintenance of the respectability of the press, and for the avoidance of those scandalous and outrageous libels and defamations to which he had often heard in that House that some portion of the press was extremely obnoxious. He had often heard complaints of this kind, and if their Lordships should determine upon rejecting these clauses, he should have the satisfaction of thinking that we should hear of those complaints no more. They had heard from the noble and learned Lord (Lyndhurst) that the press stood at present upon the best possible footing, and that he was not prepared with any remedy for those evils which were to be found in its train beyond those remedies which already existed. The noble and learned Lord contradicted the opinions which he had frequently heard expressed in that House, that the licentiousness of the press ought to be checked, and therefore, for the purpose of putting a stop to the libels and scandals of unstamped publications, they knew now that in the noble and learned Lord's opinion no remedy was necessary but such as was already provided. He believed, that the effect of these clauses would be, to produce an improvement in the character of the press, and to give additional security to the pub- 990 lic, connected, as they were, with a great and just boon to the public, to which he thought that it was fairly entitled, though he was not quite prepared to run the lengths to which the noble and learned Lord, in his enthusiastic and innocent zeal, was ready to go. The noble and learned Lord, in concurrence with parties with whom he would not offend the noble and learned Lord by saying he usually acted, declared himself anxious to take off the whole of the duty levied upon newspapers, but under present circumstances he was not prepared to say that the tax could with safety be remitted to that unqualified extent to which the noble and learned Lord expressed himself favourable. Upon these grounds he should vote for the retention of the clauses, being perfectly convinced that their rejection would insure the rejection also of what the noble and learned Lord admitted, and was on all hands admitted to be, a most wise, a most prudent, and a most salutary measure.
§ Lord Lyndhurst, in explanation, admitted that these clauses were not technically a tack, and it was because they were not, that he took the course to which the noble Marquess had referred. But the objection he entertained against them was, that the Bill related to two independent matters which had no necessary connexion with each other, and by bringing in a Bill in this form, the power of their Lordships to deal with it was improperly restricted. With respect to what the noble Marquess had said relative to what he (Lord Lyndhurst) had urged with regard to a new Bill, he had stated that the noble Viscount might take one of two courses—the Government, in the event of the House of Commons considering the rejection of these clauses as an infringement upon their privileges, might bring in a new Bill; or they might dispense with the tax altogether, because, in his opinion, the amount of the duty would be so small that it would not be worth while to retain the complicated machinery which the provisions of the Bill would keep in constant action.
§ Their Lordships divided on the original motion: Contents 40; Not-Contents 61; Majority 21.
991| List of the CONTENTS. | |
| The Lord Chancellor. | Leinster |
| DUKES. | Argyll |
| Richmond | Sutherland |
| Grafton |
| MARQUESSES. | BARONS. |
| Lansdowne | Bristol |
| Headfort | BISHOPS. |
| Queensbury | Saye and Sele |
| Westminster | Glenlyon |
| EARLS. | Barham |
| Albemarle | Holland |
| Tankerville | Seaford |
| Thanet | Ducie |
| Carlisle | Foley |
| Ilchester | Hill |
| Scarborough | Hatherton |
| Minto | Plunkett |
| Charlemont | Templemore |
| Leitrim | Mostyn |
| Sefton | Langdale |
| VISCOUNTS. | Dinorben |
| Melbourne | Gardner |
| Duncannon | TELLER. |
| Torrington | Strafford. |
| Falkland. |
| List of the NOT-CONTENTS. | |
| DUKES. | Exmouth |
| Cumberland | Hood |
| Wellington | |
| Beaufort | LORDS. |
| MARQUESSES. | De Roos |
| Salisbury | Berwick |
| Hertford | Saltoun |
| Bute | Reay |
| Westmeath | Hay |
| EARLS. | Monson |
| De Grey | Dynevor |
| Chesterfield | Montagu |
| Westmorland | Douglas |
| Doncaster (Duke of Buccleuch) | Dunsany |
| Redesdale | |
| Shaftesbury | Ellenborough |
| Warwick | Forester |
| Bathurst | Penshurst |
| Brownlow | Farnborough |
| Beverley | Wharncliffe |
| Mansfield | Lyndhurst |
| Liverpool | Cowley |
| Bandon | Stuart de Rothesay |
| Rosslyn | Wynford |
| Limerick | Fitzgerald |
| Powis | De Lisle |
| Rosse | Tenterden |
| Orford | |
| Harrowby | ARCHBISHOP. |
| Verulam | Armagh |
| Beauchamp | |
| Glengall | BISHOPS. |
| Falmouth | Rochester |
| Ripon | Glocester |
| VISCOUNTS. | Oxford |
| Gordon, Abereen (Earl of) | Cork |
§ Clause 11 was rejected, as were Clause 12 and Schedule B.
§ The remaining clauses of the Bill were agreed to. The report to be received.