SECOND READING. (Hansard, 31 May 1869)

§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE
, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that its object was to repeal certain obsolete enactments relating to newspapers, pamphlets, and other publications, and to printers, type-founders, and reading rooms, which uselessly encumbered the statute book. One of these, the 39 Geo. III., c. 79, required the licensing of rooms used for lectures, debates, and news-rooms, where any charge was made for admission; and the registration at the office of the clerk of the peace of all printing and type-founding establishments; while another required all printers of newspapers to enter into recognizances, subject to forfeiture in certain cases. These enactments arose out of special circumstances which no longer existed, the 39 Geo. III. being passed at a time when the public mind was much alarmed, and when there was reason to fear that internal discord would be added to the misfortune of a European war; while another Act bore the date of 1819, when much agitation existed, and when it was thought necessary to subject the Press to every conceivable restriction and coercion, and to force upon them a kind of fictitious loyalty. No reason, however, for taking such a course now existed, and there was no ground whatever for treating them on any other footing than other classes of literature. In repealing these Acts their Lordships need not apprehend that there would be no security against an abuse by the Press of the power which it enjoyed, for it would remain amenable to the Libel and other Acts. Again, the distinction between newspapers and books being one not of kind but of degree, it was an act of marked injustice to impose upon the former exceptional restrictions which were not imposed upon the latter. Generally speaking, moreover, these 965 Acts had not of late years been enforced, though their retention on the statute book sometimes enabled persons to take advantage of them with the view of gratifying personal feeling. They formed part of a system of legislation which had passed away; it was intimately connected with the stamp duties, and he believed it was originally the intention of Mr. Gladstone, when repealing those duties, to remove these enactments; but it was then thought better on re-consideration to confine the measure to the abolition of the stamp. The result, however, had been to place the Board of Inland Revenue in an anomalous position, as exercising a sort of censorship over the Press. As the stamp duty had been repealed, he thought that all other restrictions should be removed: but beyond this consideration he thought that, upon broader grounds, it was the duty of the Legislature to relieve the Press from restrictions of so invidious a character. Their Lordships need be under no apprehension that the British Museum would lose its title to a copy of every newspaper, as its privilege would be secured in a more effectual way by a Bill which was pending in the other House. Considering the high character for loyalty and integrity of the English Press, he trusted there would be no objection to this measure.

§ LORD CAIRNS
said, he did not rise with any intention of opposing the Bill. He believed that, as the noble Marquess had said, the Acts of Parliament mentioned in the Schedule of the Bill were obsolete; that they had fallen into disuse; that they were parts of a legislation that really had passed away; and that whenever any action had been taken under them it had been of a spasmodic kind, and in order to gratify personal feeling rather than to further the ends of justice. He only rose now for the purpose of observing upon a recent occurrence in reference to one of those Acts. The Act of 1799 was passed at a time when the public mind was very much alarmed, more particularly with reference to events then happening on the Continent, and to an insurrection then prevailing in Ireland. One of the provisions of the Act was of a very severe character. It imposed a heavy 966 penalty upon any lecturer who delivered a lecture, to which he charged admission, in an unlicensed room, and it also rendered all persons attending any lecture in a room which had not been licensed by the magistrates liable to a penalty of £20. That this provision was tyrannical, capricious, and absurd, nobody, he supposed, would now venture to deny; but the singular thing about it was that it had been put in force by the Government within the last few weeks. He was informed that lectures were being delivered, in different towns in England, by a lecturer whose name had very frequently been before the public, and upon the discretion of whoso proceedings as a lecturer he did not wish to pass any opinion, for he was not aware of the precise character of the lectures, or of the circumstances under which they were delivered; he was told, however, that they were lectures of a controversial, or religions kind, and that there was nothing illegal in them. It seems that the Home Secretary was applied to in March last by persons disagreeing with the subject-matter of the lectures, and asked to authorize or instruct the magistrates to prevent their proposed delivery in a private hired room at Tynemouth, on the ground that a disturbance was apprehended. The reply of the Home Secretary, as might have been expected, was that the magistrates had no power to prevent the delivery of lectures on such a subject, and that otherwise the discussion of questions of public interest might be stopped whenever those who took the opposite side threatened to disturb the meeting. That reply was dated the 21st March. Now, this Bill, which proposed to repeal the Act of 1799, was introduced into the House of Commons on the 8th of April; but, in the meantime, that Act of 1799 had been brought to the notice of the Home Secretary, and he authorized the local authorities of Tynemouth to issue a notice that every person attending Mr. Murphy's lecture, and paying money for admission, would be liable to a penalty of £20 under the Act. The lecturer had hired a room, and had announced that to defray expenses 2d. would be charged for admission. Had there been no charge this old Act could not have been brought into operation to stop the lecture, but advantage was taken of the charge of 2d. to put it in force. The Home Secre- 967 tary, in a letter on the subject, stated that, having been applied to by the mayor to know what steps could be taken, he had not hesitated to put in force an Act which he quite admitted was one to be used only in extreme cases. Now, whatever might be the purport of the lecture—always supposing that there was nothing in it actually illegal—he thought it was to be regretted that the Government should have interposed to prevent free discussion, whatever form it might take; and it was still more to be regretted that only four days before introducing this Bill, which must have been already in print or drafted, they should put in force an enactment which they asked Parliament to repeal as obsolete, and as only enforced spasmodically, and for the purpose of gratifying personal feeling.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
, while concurring with his noble and learned Friend in the expediency of repealing these enactments, felt bound to add a few words in order to explain the precise circumstances connected with the very singular demonstration which was contemplated at Tynemouth. The gentleman, of whom notice had been taken by the noble and learned Lord, and who was in the habit of lecturing in various parts of the country, had so conducted himself as to excite not merely the degree of opposition which might reasonably be expected by every man advocating opinions distasteful to a large number of the inhabitants, but to occasion the actual shedding of blood and open and violent conflicts in more than one place. There was nothing on which the feelings of people were more easily aroused than on religions questions; and the lecturer, on a previous visit to Tynemouth, had so conducted himself that a disturbance arose—a disturbance which he (the Lord Chancellor) was far from regarding as justifiable, but which resulted in the firing of Loaded arms into the lecture-room, to the great alarm and danger of the audience—many of whom sought to escape danger betaking shelter under the seats. The magistrates had information that, in spite of all this, he proposed to repeat his lecture and these causes of excitement: and they accordingly appealed to the Home Secretary to inquire what course could be taken with regard to the anticipated disturbance. Mr. Bruce 968 found himself vested with these powers, not merely under the Act of 1799, but under an Act of the 8th and 9th of the Queen, in which, on the proposal of the late Mr. Thomas Buncombe, who certainly had no desire to continue oppressive enactments, the old statutes were dealt with—the precaution being taken that no prosecution should be instituted without the direct sanction of the Law Officers of the Crown. Under these circumstances, the Home Secretary, finding that bloodshed had all but occurred on a former occasion, and that there was to be a repetition of these proceedings, felt that, whatever might be the policy of continuing this power, it was his duty to do all he could to arrest the expected calamity, and that, while the law existed, this was a case, if ever there was one, in which it should be enforced. He trusted their Lordships would be of opinion that in so doing he had simply performed the duty intrusted to him.

§ LORD CAIRNS
said, that the object of the Act of the present reign was to curtail the operation of the enactment of 1799 by requiring the assent of the Law Officers of the Crown, and that the Home Secretary could not prevent the delivery of the lecture, but could simply threaten to enforce the penalty for making a charge for admission. He doubted the polity of giving the public to understand that if any body of persons disliked the subject-matter of a lecture to be delivered in a private room they had only to fire shots through the window in order to induce the Government to prevent the repetition of the lecture at any future time.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
explained that he had not stated that the Home Secretary could prevent the delivery of the lecture. All that he had power to do was to warn persons, who had so misconducted themselves as to occasion a breach of the peace, that, if they made no charge they would be dealt with in one way, and that if they attempted to make a profit by such proceedings, this particular law would be enforced against them.

§ THE DUKE or SOMERSET
, as a trustee of the British Museum, remarked that the collection of newspapers in that institution was of great value, and that historians, such as the late Lord Macaulay and Mr. Hallam, attached great importance to it. As this Bill would put 969 an end to the arrangement by which, the newspapers were obtained; he hoped its further stages would be delayed until security had been given for a continuance to the Museum of its present advantage, He thought it would have been much better had a comprehensive Bill been introduced, repealing all the old Acts, and embodying all the regulations which it was intended to retain; for the present measure could not be understood without reference to numerous statutes.

§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE
explained that, whereas the British Museum was now supplied through the Stamp Office, a Bill was passing through the other House which would secure it a copy of every newspaper directly from the printers; so that, in future, the British Museum would, in this respect, stand on a much better footing than it did at present. A Bill such as that which the noble Duke had suggested would have been so complicated, and would have raised so many questions, that there would have been little chance; of passing it this Session.