HL Deb 04 August 1840 vol 55 cc1224-36
The Bishop of Exeter

seeing the noble Marquess the Secretary for the Home Department in his place, rose to present a petition which appeared to him to be of great importance, as it deeply concerned the preservation of the morality of the country and the due and impartial administration of the law. In the outset he would not disguise from their Lordships that the petition contained grave charges of criminality against the noble Secretary of State, and he hoped that the noble Secretary would be able to explain the facts alleged against him in such a manner as would be satisfactory to their Lordships and to the country. It would be in the recollection of their Lordships, that in the commencement of the present Session, he had troubled the House with certain statements relative to the progress of that horrid system called "Socialism." The consequence of what occurred in that House on the subject was, that in many of the large towns through- out the kingdom numbers of most respectable individuals associated together for the purpose of checking and correcting the hourly growing mischief as far as they possibly could. Amongst other places, a body of persons associated together in Manchester, for the express purpose of discouraging and putting down blasphemous and immoral publications in that town; and the committee of that society had intrusted to his care the petition which he was then about to present to their Lordships. Of that committee, five were clergymen of Manchester, two were Wesleyan ministers, two were solicitors, and four were respectable laymen. These thirteen persons formed the committee of that society. The petition, however, could only be received as the petition of the chairman and secretary, their names alone being appended to it. The petitioners stated that Abel Heywood, a bookseller at Manchester, was indicted at the Sessions held early this year for the publication of a blasphemous libel, and it was his painful and most unpleasant duty to read to their Lordships the libel for the publication of which Heywood was called on to answer to the outraged laws of his country. The writer of the libel said— What wretched stuff this Bible is, to be sure! What a random idiot its author must have been! I would advise the human race to burn every Bible they have got. Such a book is actually a disgrace to ourang-outangs, much less to men! I would advise them to burn it, in order that posterity may never know we believed in such abominable trash. What must they think of our intellects? What must they think of our incredible foolery? And we not only believe it, but we actually look upon the book as the sacred word of God, as a production of infinite wisdom! Was insanity ever more complete? I, for one, however, renounce the book. I renounce it as a vile compound of filth, blasphemy, and nonsense; as a fraud and cheat; and as an insult to God. That atrocious libel was prosecuted, and lie was rejoiced to say by the direction of the noble Marquess, in accordance with his promise made, when early in the Session he brought the subject of those blasphemous publications before their Lordships. The trial took place in May, and Heywood pleaded guilty to the indictment. On his having so pleaded guilty, he put in an affidavit in extenuation of his offence, and for a mitigation of punishment. In that affidavit he swore— That, having learned early in the month of February last that certain printed papers, and, amongst others, certain printed papers it that time published by the deponent in the way of his trade, were deemed improper, offensive, and illegal, by persons of eminence in church and state, and more especially by the right rev. the Lord Bishop of Exeter, the deponent did thereupon immediately give orders to the persons by him employed in his said trade not to publish or sell any more of the said printed papers so deemed to be improper, offensive, and illegal as aforesaid; and that the deponent did not himself, publish or sell any of such printed papers; and that he did verily believe that the said persons by him employed in his said trade did not publish or sell any of the said printed papers after the deponent had learned, as aforesaid, that the said printed papers were so deemed improper offensive and illegal. On the production of this affidavit, the counsel for the prosecution stated that Heywood had pleaded guilty at the request of the Crown, and that he was instructed by her Majesty's Government not to press for judgment against the defendant, but to consent to his discharge on his entering into recognizances for his good behaviour. Here there was a primâ facie case of offence alleged against the noble Marquess, and it would be for him to explain what were the circumstances, looking to the situation in which the country was then placed, that operated to prevent the law of the land from taking its just course in the case of this defendant? Sorry, however, he was to say, and this was the complaint which he made against the noble Marquess, that, at the time he suggested to the defendant to plead guilty, and directed counsel not to press for judgment against him, at that very time he was in a condition not merely to assert but to prove it, and calling on the noble Marquess to disprove the fact if he could), at that very time and moment a stipendiary magistrate was furnishing the noble Marquess with evidence against this individual—evidence which proved that this man, who swore that he had discontinued the sale of those blasphemous libels in February, had repeatedly sold libels of that description in the month of March, of a nature infinitely more disgusting, filthy, and revolting, if possible, than that which he had read, and which he would not offend their Lordships' ears by alluding to further. The stipendiary magistrate of Manchester proved that the defendant, not only by his shopkeeper, but by himself, and with a guilty knowledge of what he was doing, had sold these horrible publications in the month of March. And yet, with these proofs in his possession—proofs placed in the noble Marquess's possession in consequence of the circular letter addressed by him to the Lords-lieutenant of counties, calling upon them to communicate with the magistrates for the purpose of putting down these blasphemous publications—proofs placed in his possession in consequence of his own proclamation, in alluding to which the noble Marquess boasted in that House of the zeal and anxiety he manifested for the preservation of morality—in the face of these proofs the noble Marquess had ventured to urge the counsel for the prosecution to advise the defendant to plead guilty, in order that he might have an excuse for liberating him on his entering into recognizances. These facts involved matter of grave accusation against the noble Marquess; the more especially as, connected with other circumstances disclosed in the petition, they showed that a corrupt motive existed for the course of proceeding adopted in this matter. It appeared that this proceeding—the liberation of Heywood—took place at the suggestion of certain Members of Parliament. It was alleged in the petition that this individual was dealt with as he had described on the representations made by the Members of Parliament for Manchester and Salford. Here he was bound to add that those three Members for Manchester and Salford did not deny that they had presented a memorial at the Home-office in favour of Abel Heywood. In saying this he did not mean to assert that those Gentlemen knew exactly the nature of the charge against the defendant. He did not mean to charge them with the guilt of favouring blasphemy. But he must say, that it would become a high officer of the Crown, in whose hands was especially placed the guardianship of the laws and morals of the country, to be peculiarly jealous of the interference of Members belonging to either House of Parliament in matters of this serious and important nature. Such an interference ought to have induced the noble Marquess to use the utmost caution even without being; in possession of the evidence to which he had alluded, before the noble Marquess consented to deal so lightly with one who was not a casual, but an habitual vendor and propagator of these blasphemous tracts. The facts of the case showed that the defendant knew he was doing wrong when he was selling these publications; for it appeared that when he was applied to for them, he did not at first consent, but was finally induced to go into his inner shop, and from his stock there he placed the copies in the hands of those who were employed to procure them. Under these circumstances he contended that a grave wound had been inflicted on the justice of the country, lie should now beg leave to read the concluding paragraph of the petition, which ran thus:— That your petitioners are most strongly of opinion that the discharge of the said Abel Heywood under the circumstances aforesaid, the said Abel Heywood having been a notorious vendor of such publications as aforesaid, and being a member of the said society of Socialists, was naturally calculated to encourage the principles of the said society, and particularly such sentiments as are contained in the said blasphemous and obscene publications, and to induce a general belief, especially in the minds of those persons whose welfare is more immediately endangered by the propagation of infidel opinions, that her Majesty's Government were perfectly indifferent as to the maintenance of the interests of religion and good order; or were, at all events, unwilling to put into operation those laws for the repression of blasphemy and vice which are confided to their administration; and that a still greater danger has ensued, lest the lower classes of society should be led to imagine that political influence will induce her Majesty's Government to dispense with the punishment of the most flagrant and most scandalous offences. That your petitioners, although unwilling to express their own concurrence in the conclusions which they conscientiously believe will be formed, from the facts before stated, by the mass of the people, feel nevertheless bound to express their deep regret at the conduct pursued by her Majesty's Government—conduct which, as they conceive, has tended to throw discredit upon the laws of the land, rather than upon the crimes which those laws were intended to repress. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that your Lordships' lion. House will be pleased to institute an inquiry into the facts before stated, and also into the circumstances under which her Majesty's Government were induced to forego the passing of any sentence upon the said Abel Heywood, and to give to your petitioners such further or other relief in the premises as to your Lordships' hon. House shall seem meet.

The Marquess of Normanby

said, that as their Lordships might well suppose, he was naturally anxious to take the first opportunity of giving the fullest explanation of his conduct in reference to the case on which this petition was founded. But before stating the facts, which would show that he had taken a course which was most likely to lead to what all their Lordships must think most desirable—the complete stoppage of the publication of such libels as those which the right rev. Prelate had read, and which by general concurrence ought to be suppressed—he would beg leave to repudiate with all the contempt which his respect for the right rev. Prelate's station would permit him to exhibit, to the insinuation which the right rev. Prelate had thrown out, that he had been operated upon in the discharge of his duty because three Members of Parliament came to him. The right rev. Prelate said, that they came to the Home Office, and stated, "We are three;" and then he insinuated that this influenced him in the discharge of his duty. True it was that three members of Parliament came to him, and presented a petition on the subject of Abel Heywood; but, as their Lordships must well know, there was nothing more common than for persons, who had petitions to present at the Home Office, to put them into the hands of the Secretary of State. To those who had left this petition, he had stated that he could give them no reply then to the course which he should adopt, as the case of Abel Heywood was already under examination, and he must act as might seem best upon the report which should be made to him. He had received previously to their call a memorial from Heywood, which, at that very time, had been transmitted to Sir Charles Shaw for inquiry. In that memorial, Abel Heywood stated— A prosecution had been instituted against him for having published Haslam's letters to the clergy of all denominations, which he had afterwards discovered to Contain a blasphemous libel, and that he had been tried at the last Midsummer sessions for the publication of that blasphemous libel. Another proof of the unwarrantable contradiction of the right rev. Prelate to the assertion he had ventured to interrupt him by making when he endeavoured to set him right as to the time when the prosecution occurred. The trial did take place at the Midsummer sessions. It was true, that he had previously received from Mr. Crook, the stipendiary magis- trate of Manchester, some of these letters and having agreed in the opinion expressed by the right rev. Prelate of their character, he had placed them in the hands of the law officers of the Crown for inquiry whether they should not be prosecuted. The petitioner said, also— That I am a general publisher and wholesale bookseller, not confined to any particular class of books, but that I do sell every description of books, and that I have published, sold, and circulated five different pamphlets written in opposition to, and condemnatory of the language made use of in ' Haslam's letters.' I solemnly declare that I was not. aware of the libel complained of in this pamphlet, until the evening on which I was arrested, and that I have not, since the circular issued by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, sold a copy of ' Haslam's Letters,' but I have done all that I could to put a stop to their circulation, and have induced the author to destroy the whole stock on hand, to prevent the further circulation, although the author had bought types, a press, &c, to publish the work himself. The time when this person was arrested was on the 14th of April. Now, the right rev. Prelate had alluded to many other documents sent up to the Home Office by the secretary of this society. A great many documents had been undoubtedly transmitted, with the proof marked at the back, of the place where they were bought. These were all sent to the law officers of the Crown on the 11th of April, three days before Heywood's arrest, without any particular attention having been paid to the names of the persons from whom they were bought. The memorialist stated that, subsequently to the date of his arrest, he had never published this work. If he had so published it he had stated inaccurately, but if, as the right reverend prelate had averred, he had sworn, in his affidavit, that he had not published any after the month of February, and yet had published so late as March or April, this person was liable to an indictment for perjury. This portion of the case had never before come to his knowledge; but if, as the right reverend prelate had said, Abel Heywood did swear that he had published none since February, and yet there could be proof brought of subsequent publication he was liable to punishment. All that he thought it necessary to state in explanation of his conduct was, that as to the facts set forth in the memorial he did make such inquiry as he thought necessary of Sir Charles Shaw, the commissioner of police at Manchester, who communicated with others. The reply was, that it was certain that this person was a general publisher of books of all descriptions, and that they did not think that he had sold any subsequently to his arrest. Their Lordships knew the situation in which that part of the country had been placed, and Sir Charles Shaw did urge strongly that the Government should take the course which it afterwards adopted in consequence of Heywood's having rendered him great assistance in preserving the peace last winter in that part of the country. It was certainly very proper that general publishers should be made answerable for libels of this description. At the same time the power of publication was a very difficult one to exercise, while, on the other hand, it was liable to great abuse. But, from the best information he could obtain, it did appear to him that this individual had been unconsciously the instrument of publishing this objectionable work; and as he had declared he was not aware of the libel contained in it, and as he had undertaken not to publish any more copies, and had adopted the best means to suppress the publication in any shape, by prevailing on Mr. Haslam to destroy the copies remaining unsold, he felt himself perfectly justified in taking the course he did, because, by doing so, he had promoted that result which every one must desire, which was the suppression of these works in a manner that should meet with the most general concurrence of public opinion. Suppose, after the party had pleaded guilty, first denying that he was aware of the existence of the libel, and declaring that he would not repeat the offence of again publishing this work, he had taken an opposite course and had given to the proceedings the character of persecution, would there not have been great danger, that under these peculiar circumstances an erroneous impression might have been created, and a spurious sympathy excited, in a case in which the only wish ought to be, that the feelings of the country should be sound and justly indignant against the offence. What had been the result? It had been distinctly ascertained that publications of this nature, since the prosecution of Mr. Heywood, had very sensibly and materially declined. So far, therefore, it could not be said that the course he had adopted had tended to promote this description of works. On the contrary, he believed, that while the course he had taken had had the effect of showing those persons the risk they incurred, and the certainty there was that Government would prosecute if they repeated their offence, the inevitable effect of an opposite line of conduct on his part would have been to have excited attention to this publication, and thereby have increased the public demand for it. With regard to the petition which the right reverend prelate had just presented, as far as he was informed, it by no means expressed the state of feeling generally prevailing-among the clergy of Manchester, or among the most respectable, religious, and well-disposed of all parties, and who were the most anxious for the suppression of this kind of publication. The right rev. prelate had stated that the petition was only signed by two persons, and it could, therefore, be considered only as the petitions of those individuals. One of them was the Rev. Mr. Stowell, who he (Lord Normanby) understood was himself at this moment under prosecution for a libel; it, therefore, perhaps, would have been more seemly on his part to have abstained from urging in the manner he had done in this petition, that severe measures should be taken against a person who had been convicted of an offence similar to that with which he had himself been charged. The result of such a course would have been to have made the individual the object of a spurious popularity, which would have done more injury to the cause of truth, of morals, and of religion, than any other that could have been pursued. He would not trespass upon their Lordships' attention any further, but he really felt indignant at the manner in which the right reverend prelate had presumed to impute motives to him. On this occasion, as on all other occasions, he had acted only from a sense of duty. He had not acted merely on the representations of three members of Parliament, but from the information he had received from other quarters, and also from his own sense of what was right, in order to produce that result which all must desire—namely, the suppression of this description of books, the circulation of which could not be more effectually promoted, than by the notoriety given to them by the system which the right rev. prelate had throughout pursued during the present session of Parliament,

The Bishop of Exeter

had only said, that under the circumstances of the case, the effect of the Members for Manchester and the Member for Stockport going to the Secretary of State was to say to him—not in words, but in a manner stronger than by words—"We are three." He had never charged those gentlemen with using any such expression. With regard to the language which the noble Marquess had been pleased to use, he had no intention of retaliating; he entertained no contempt for the noble Marquess; he entertained contempt for no one, and therefore not for the noble Marquess. There were, however, two or three things in the noble Marquess's speech of which he felt bound to take notice. The noble Marquess said he had been informed, upon good authority, that Mr. Heywood was not habitually a vendor of blasphemous publications. Now, whoever told the noble Marquess that, told him what the noble Marquess had in his own possession the most ample means of contradicting. He would read to their Lordships one of the statements in the possession of the noble Marquess:— Manchester, March 24. John M'Dowall, of No. 40 Cotton-street, Manchester, weaver, states that he called at the shop of Abel Heywood, bookseller and publisher, 60 Oldham-street, Manchester, on Saturday evening, the 21st of March, about half-past seven o'clock, and asked for Nos. 1 and 2 of Clarke's Critical Review; that a woman was attending in the shop, and she said they had none; that having been referred to Abel Heywood's shop for them, and believing they had them notwithstanding such refusal, he called again the same evening about a quarter to ten o'clock, and saw Abel Heywood himself, and asked him for the same numbers; that after some hesitation he fetched the numbers asked for out of an inner room and handed them to M'Dowall. He held in his hand a copy of the work referred to, but it was of so shocking a description, that nothing less than absolute necessity would induce him to bring any passages of it before their Lordships. He would put it into the hands of the noble Marquess, in order that the noble Marquess might judge for himself. He believed, indeed, that a copy of the work accompanied the communication which had been addressed to the noble Marquess (as we understood). Four of these statements had been sent to the Home-office, proving not merely technical and constructive, but actual and guilty know- ledge, on the part of this individual of the blasphemous character of the publications. He told the noble Marquess, that the country would never believe that the Government were resolved to put down publications of this kind, nor that the Government cared anything whatever for the religion or morality of the country when put in competition with their continuance in office, if the noble Marquess merely deluded the public by a show of proceeding against offenders of this description, and then allowed them to escape with impunity on the first application that was made. The noble Marquess stated, that the consequence of the system that had been pursued, had been to diminish the number of these offences. Some accounts had reached him however, and he would tell the noble Marquess of one meeting that had taken place which certainly did not confirm the statement. The noble Marquess must indeed have known of the meeting taking place, as information respecting it was forwarded to the noble Marquess by a magistrate of the county of Surrey. At this meeting, which took place on Ham-common on Tuesday last, discourses had been uttered in public of a most frightful kind. He would read to their Lordships what had been said by Mr. Owen on that occasion, according to the statement of two respectable individuals. In answer to the question whether man is responsible for his actions? Mr. Owen replied in the negative, illustrating his answer by a tumbler glass and decanter in his hand, which he said were not responsible for having clean or dirty water put into them, "and such is man; therefore, man is not responsible, either for murder or any other act that he commits." His informant then said, "Am I to understand that man is not responsible for murder or any other act?" "Decidedly so," said Mr. Owen, "man is not responsible; no, not for murder or anything else he does." This was the language held at a public meeting, of which notice had been given, and at which, therefore, it could not be doubted the noble Marquess had persons present to take notice of what occurred. He would mention another instance: he had received a letter as he came down to the House stating, that a blasphemous publication was suspended in a shop in the Strand, and that the writer having addressed the noble Marquess on the subject, had hoped that the publication would have been suppressed, but that it still continued to be exhibited and to disgrace this Christian city. He had furnished to the noble Marquess an offer of evidence against the individual in whose shop this work was exhibited. He did not know whether proceedings had been commenced in consequence; he hoped they had, and that it was only the "law's delay" which had prevented their being yet brought to a satisfactory result; but it was in April last that he made the communication to the noble Marquess. The noble Marquess had not been contented with standing on the defensive, for he gave their Lordships to understand, that the persons from whom the petition emanated were not entitled to much respect, and that as one of the gentlemen by whom it was signed was under prosecution for libel, it would have been in better taste on his part to have abstained from signing the petition. Now, he had that day received a communication from a gentleman concerned in the case, who was a respectable solicitor in Manchester, and who stated, that so far was it from being true, that Mr. Stowell was under prosecution for libel, that no prosecution was ever thought of being instituted against him. It was true that some proceeding had been taken, but it was in the nature of an action, and he would tell their Lordships what the words were for which this action had been commenced. He had no personal acquaintance with this gentleman, but he had heard much of his learning, his talent, and of his zeal, both as a Christian pastor and as a defender of the doctrines of the Church of England (although the noble Marquess might not think this a ground for praise) against the attacks of Roman Catholics. He admitted that Mr. Stowell entertained an ardent wish, as he also did, that the Roman Catholics might not be able to succeed in what Mr. Stowell believed, and what he believed, to be their objects. But he (the Bishop of Exeter) had never heard that this Gentleman had taken any unworthy course in his hostility. It appeared that the words which had been made the ground of the action had been read by Mr. Stowell at a public meeting held at Manchester, to petition their Lordships, and he believed the other House of Parliament, against any further grant to the College at Maynooth. The statement read by Mr. Stowell was to the effect that a Roman Catholic priest in Manchester bad ordered one of his congregation, named John O'Hare, to do penance, by going on his hands and knees in the public road. For this statement the action had been brought. He was assured and believed that there was no doubt whatever of the fact that O'Hare had been found on his hands and knees in the streets, and had been seen in this position by four policemen, who, being surprised at so extraordinary a spectacle—for we were not living in Ireland—inquired the reason of it, and were told by the man that he was commanded to do so as a penance by his priest, and could not have remission of his sins, or at all events of their punishment, unless he did this penance. Under these circumstances, Mr. Stowell considered himself at liberty, as he should have done, and as he believed the noble Marquess would have done, to state this fact at a public meeting. The man turned out to be a lunatic; he therefore could not be called upon as a witness, and the priest had brought this action, but the opinions had been taken, of some of the most eminent law authorities, who ridiculed the idea of the action being maintained. Such was the ground on which the noble Marquess considered a clergyman disqualified from remonstrating against the publication of blasphemous libels.

The Marquess of Normanby

only rose to notice that part of the right rev. prelate's speech in which the right rev. prelate stated that he had in his possession proofs of the guilt of Mr. Heywood. He could only say, that he had received a large packet of papers, which he had referred to the law officers of the Crown, and had not seen since. The result of the single proceeding which was now brought under their Lordships' notice, would not affect the course which the law officers of the Crown might think proper to adopt with respect to the other publications.

Conversation dropped.

Back to