ment as to the periods in which they should repay the 5,000,000l. to the Bank. He could not forget that he had had the honour of being an ally of the right hon. gentleman in the discussions which then took place; and he could not help considering, that it would be most unwise, and unnecessary, for them now to interfere with respect to the repayment of those 5,000,000l. As to whether the whole of those repayments should be completed between the months of July last and April next, it appeared, that the repayment of a sum of 1,200,000l. had actually taken place, with which he was well satisfied; and that being the case, he should vote against the motion.

Mr. Ricardo said, it appeared to him that the House would act very unwisely by interfering as to the arrangements entered into by government for the repayment of the 5,000,000l. of advances to the Bank. At the same time he was at a loss to conceive what danger could arise from giving any information upon the subject. It had been objected, that the production of that information would lead to extensive stock-jobbing. He thought it would have just the contrary effect; for stock-jobbing was always best assisted by secrecy-by the circumstance of some individuals possessing certain information, which the other parties, with whom they transacted their bargains, were ignorant of. Now, supposing the statement required were made known, no jobbing could take place; because every one would then know all that had occurred, as to the repayments. With regard to what had fallen from the chancellor of the exchequer, that the state of the exchanges afforded a means of knowing what capital was going out of the country, he thought very differently. Supposing he wished to invest a sum of 50,000/. in France, or any other country; might he not order his correspondent to invest the produce of the goods he had sent out (50,000l. for instance) in the public funds, or in other goods, or in lands? No alteration could take place in the exchanges, unless there was a bill negociated. The official accounts annually laid before the House, relative to our exports and imports, were such, that it was impossible to draw any correct or practical inference from them. He remembered to have heard it stated, that at the time of the union with Ireland, each of the two countries gave a relative and comparative statement of her exports (VOL. XLI.)

and imports; when Ireland made out that she had exported the larger quantity of commodities to England, and England appeared to have exported the larger quantity to Ireland. No correct information, therefore, could be derived from such returns. He should vote for the motion of his hon. friend.

Mr. Kinnaird believed that one of the greatest evils which lessened the confidence of the public in the resources of the country, and which gave rise to all those rumours that could not surely be of advantage to it was, the ignorance in which the public were kept with respect to the intentions of the chancellor of the exchequer. As to the manner in which the right hon. gentleman was to repay 5,000,000l. to the Bank, he was confident that the reports which had been circulated relative to that simple fact, had done more injury to the funds than any thing else, and had more encouraged stock-jobbing, against which he would ever set his face. He should vote for the motion of his hon, friend.

Mr. Maberly begged to ask the right hon. gentleman, whether he did not consider this as a matter of finance? Whether the principle, upon which the act of parliament directed the repayment of 5,000,000l. to the Bank, was or was not conceived with a view to lessen the unfunded debt of the country, and to enable the Bank the better to pay in specie? Parliament had made provision for the repayment of one debt of 5,000,000l., only 1,000,000%. of which had been paid; and they had borrowed, in addition, other 5,000,000l. Was this a subject for inquiry or not? By borrowing 5,000,000l. upon the consolidated fund, they had, in fact, increased the debt by 1,000,000l., instead of decreasing it by 5,000,000l. The right hon. gentleman had stated, that the customs were deficient, in the quarter from July up to the 10th of October, upwards of 900,000l. The right hon. gentleman told them that they must not look at the exports and imports, but at the exports. The right hon. gen. tleman begged them to look at the great article of tea, and to observe the number of pounds sold. But he seemed to forget that the increased consumption of this article furnished no test of the improvement of the revenue, as the duty upon it was an ad valorem duty, and thus, following the original price, might decrease in aggregate amount with an increase of (5 A)

consumption. The right hon. gentleman well knew, that in the ensuing year he must look for a defalcation of 1,000,000l. in the duties on that article. Let him look to facts. Was it not known to him that the distillers did not begin to work till much later than usual this year, and that this year the brewers had brewed 100,000 barrels of beer less than they did during the last? All the great articles of excise had declined. He did not for this blame the right hon. gentleman, because he could not force a demand from customers on the continent. Certainly his majesty's ministers could not therefore be blamed: nor was it to be expected that they were to furnish people with money for the purchase of tea, tobacco, and other articles. But what the right hon. gentleman was to be blamed for was this that he made his calculations too sanguinely, and then had to justify them; and accordingly, on a former occasion, he was more sanguine in those calculations than the committee appointed to inquire into the same subject. This was, he feared, certain that if there was this difference between the quarters, it must go

on.

The right hon. gentleman could not expect to raise the same taxes out of a reduced which he had received from a large expenditure.

The motion was negatived.

Mr. Maberly then moved for "an account of all Exchequer Bills received in payment of duties between the 1st of July and the 21st of December, 1819." The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved, by way of amendment, the insertion of the words, " 10th of October," in the place of " 21st of December." After a short conversation, the House divided on the motion that the 21st of December" stand part of the question: Ayes, 30; Noes, 90. The main question, as amended, was then agreed to.

NEWSPAPER STAMP DUTIES BILL.] Lord Castlereagh moved the third reading of the News-paper Stamp Duties-bill.

Mr. Bernal said, he had this day conferred with some news-paper venders, and proprietors of news-papers, residing in different parts of the country, and they all agreed that some of the clauses would materially affect those employed in vending cheap publications. They were men of small capital; and the clauses, if severely executed, would be the ruin of them; that which required them to find security would

fall most heavily on them. It was impos sible for them to find those securities which the act demanded of them; and therefore for the last time, he had to entreat the noble lord, and the chancellor of the exchequer, to apply some remedy to the grievance, by not persisting in the measure as it now stood.

Mr. George Lamb said, he would make no apology for rising on the same side immediately after his hon. friend, as it seemed to be the system adopted by the gentlemen opposite, to allow those upon his side of the House to go on speaking one after the other, till somebody on the opposite benches might think it convenient to answer. In looking at the measure before the House, it was impossible not to remember a declaration of the noble lord, that it was not his wish to establish a censorship of the press, as if a member of the Crown thought it necessary to disclaim having entertained a proposition from which our ancestors-he did not mean those of Alfred's days, with whom we had very little in common, but those of later date would have revolted with horror.→ Perhaps, however, ministers did not go so far as other members of the House in supporting arbitrary principles; for while one hon. gentleman had held that the freedom of the constitution ought to be abridged, another (the hon. member for Corfe-Castle) had said, that Mr. Justice Blackstone had become an obsolete writer. Notwithstanding the awful authority, however, of the member for Corfe-Castle, he must venture to differ from him on that head. He considered the very learned and admirable writer in question of the highest authority, and reasonably held him in that estimation to which his celebrated work entitled him. But if these measures were to be still pursued; if the system which was prepared by the noble lord a few weeks ago were yet to go on, he must certainly think the Commentaries of Mr. Justice Blackstone on the law of England were indeed about to be laid on the shelf, as hostile to the state of things which those measures and that system were calculated to produce. He did not know whether the Attorneygeneral and the Solicitor-general meant to favour them with a new set of institutes of the constitution which they had promulged; but if the progress of arbitrary legislation were to go on with the same fearful rapidity with which it had advanced since the House re-assembled, he was afraid that the sheets of their work would be scarcely dry

before it would become altogether inapplicable to the existing state of the times. As to Mr. Justice Blackstone, however, though perhaps he incurred the risk of being thought equally obsolete to quote such an authority, it never entered into his head to suppose that any thing like pains and penalties could be imposed previous to publication. All that that great man laboured for, was, to justify the responsibility of the publisher after publication.His words were:- "Where blasphemous, immoral, treasonable, schismatical, seditious, or scandalous libels are punished by the English law, some with a greater, others with a less degree of severity, the liberty of the press, properly understood, is by no means infringed or violated. The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published." Such was the forcible demonstration of Mr. Justice Blackstone. In the course of the previous discussion, there had been an attempt made by the gentlemen opposite to distinguish between authors and publishers, and to prove that the restraints laid upon the latter could not affect the former. But it ought to be recollected, that in some cases they were the same persons, and in most cases their interests were completely identified, so that no restriction imposed on the one could be inoperative on the other. The securities required were said to be intended for the purpose of excluding from the management of the press, persons of desperate character, and placing it in the hands of those who were men of substance, and who consequently, both from regard to the station which they held in society, and the pecuniary loss to which they would be subjected in case of abusing the right of free discussion, would be cautious not to publish any work of a seditious or blasphemous nature. But could it be said, that the necessity of entering into recognizances and finding securities was not a censorship?-A censorship, not like that which formerly existed in this country, and which still existed in other parts of Europe-a censorship, not adapted to exclude articles of a wicked or dangerous tendency, but a censorship directed against writers and publishers of a certain. fortune, be their principles good or bad, their works useful or pernicious? No man now, unless possessed of a certain

amount of wealth, would be allowed to address his countrymen through the medium of the press; and the poor author, however gifted with talents would be reduced to silence. Lord Coke had said, that there were five trades condemned to perpetual beggary-namely, the alchymist, the informer, the monopolist, the concealer, and the poetaster. The trade of the alchymist was now gone, since the philosopher's stone had been despaired of; that of the informer had lately been prosperous; he would not go over the rest, but would say, that by this bill the author who was condemned to poverty was likewise condemned to silence. Would the measure, by thus raising the pecuniary qualifications of public instructors, tend to render the press more respectable, or exclude those libels which it was the object of the legislature to suppress? It had no such tendency. The rich man, who valued little the sum which it was necessary to offer in recognizance or security, might still publish his libels, however libellous, without the least restraint but the sacrifice of a few hundreds. His money could secure him a ready publication of the most wicked and pernicious works as easily after the passing of this bill as at present; while a man with less wealth, but with more talent or principle, would be restrained from benefitting either the public or himself through the medium of the press, merely because he was poor. Let the House take into consideration the situation of a young man of genius, desirous of becoming an author, after the passing of this act-a young man without wealth or rich connexions, but conscious of talents and acquirements that would fit him for enlightening the public mind on the most momentous questions of politics and government, and enable him to lay the foundations of a lasting reputation for himself. Before he could establish any periodical publication, he must go to his friend to ask him to be his surety; and what would that friend answer to such an application? His answer would be, "I have the highest opinion of your talents and principles; I place the most perfect reliance upon your honour, as far as depends on yourself; I would trust you with my fortune, or my life; but you are going to engage in an occupation in which no human knowledge can guard you from an offence which no man can define, in which no care can preserve you from punishment, in which nothing but supernatural vigilance and con

stant attendance among your devils, can save you from exposing yourself to a conviction for libel, and me from a forfeiture of the bond you request me to enter into." It had been truly said, in a former debate, that many men who had become the glory of their country and the ornaments of literature, had risen from such low beginnings, that they would have been unable to comply with the conditions required in the present bill. To show the original situation of many who had afterwards risen to honours and distinction in the country, he would refer the House to a debate which took place on a motion regarding the conduct of the benchers of Lincoln's-inn passing a by-law to exclude from their society, persons who had been connected with the public press, when an hon. gentleman who now held a high judicial appointment, and who was then a member of the House (Mr. Stephen, master in chancery) declared that he himself would once have been liable to the exclusion; and advocated the cause of the gentlemen in question in a manner equally honourable to them and to himself. He desired the hon. gentleman opposite to picture to themselves Mr. Burke when he began his literary career, struggling with the embarrassments of poverty, and concealed in the shade of neglect, but laying the foundation of that literary eminence, and preparing those works which had afterwards become the admiration of the world; he desired them to conceive to themselves this great man obliged to go to some miserly friend or some sordid acquaintance, to request his security before he could publish any of his thoughts to his countrymen or procure a licence to comment on the acts of statesmen. From the risks that such friends would incur by entering into the bonds required by the bill, they might have refused, and he might have been prevented from publishing those works which had procured him so much celebrity. It was no fanciful or theoretical danger, that of being liable to penalties without being privy to the libel, or even when opposing its publication. A case had come into court not long ago in which a young man, the editor of a newspaper, was convicted of a libel and punished with imprisonment, though it appeared on the trial that the offensive paragraph had been inserted by command of the proprietors of the paper, for which he was responsible, without his knowledge, and contrary to his wish. On the subject of this bill, he

felt more keenly than on the other measures that preceded it; for the House was not now called upon to legislate for any certain or specific evil, as in the case of the training prevention bill-an evil acknowledged on the most certain evidence to exist, and imperiously demanding the interference of parliament to put it down

but they were required to legislate, without any apparent necessity for new laws, on the opinions of the authorities throughout the country, who demanded new powers, and joined from the highest to the lowest, from the justices of the peace down to the police officers in Manchester (who received the recommendation from their predecessors, and would transmit it to their successors in office) in recommending restrictions on the press.But before they said that education was an evil, before they declared that the present laws were insufficient to repress blasphemy and sedition, before they stigmatised all the societies in the country that had for their object to discourage impiety and suppress vice, gentlemen ought to consider the nature of the new remedy that was proposed to be applied. He conjured the House to pause before they contributed by this measure to put down the generous and philanthropic spirit which induced men to labour for the dissemination of morality; before they prevented the people from reading the Bible and the excellent and cheap tracts circulated by those men, towards superinducing the beneficial results of the Christian religion.Those who had spoken in support of the bill seemed to think that they could suppress by it one part of the press, and allow the other to remain free-as if they could make one law for the blasphemous and seditious press, and another for the moral and religious-as if they could makc a statute to stop the mouth of the blasphemer, the atheist, and the seditious libeller, which would not likewise affect the writer who advocated sound principles in morals, politics, and religion. It was in vain for him to contend against the pas sing of this bill. The House had already allowed it to be carried to its last stage, but it had not yet decided that it should continue a permanent law. He, therefore, if the bill should pass, would offer a clause after the third reading, if no other hon. gent. should think proper to do so, to limit its duration. He hoped the House would consent to the clause, and not declare its opinion that blasphemy and sedition would

Mr. Pryce said, that parliament ought not to surrender the liberties of the people permanently to a temporary alarm. It had hitherto been the glory of the English press that it had no previous censorship, but this boast it was now called upon to surrender. Before ministers asked for new powers by this extraordinary measure, they were bound to show that the existing laws were insufficient to suppress the evil complained of after having been duly carried into execution. He was willing as well as the other gentlemen on that side of the House, to sanction measures for the establishment of tranquillity, and he had no objection to the imposition of a tax on some publications, provided the liberty of the press would not be destroyed by the remainder of the Bill. He blamed the government and the law officers of the Crown, for declining to bring on more prosecutions, in consequence of the acquittal of Hone. He must connect the present bill with the other measures which had been brought forward by ministers; and in his mind the system taken as a whole, created more grounds of alarm than the state of the country which it was intended to meet, alarming as that was. In order to see the intentions of ministers, the bills should be considered as they were originally introduced, and not as they were subsequently modified. The honourable gentleman then went over the changes made in the traverse-bill, the seditious meetings bill, the blasphemous libel bill, and the bill now before the House; and contended that their original severity showed the conviction of ministers, not that the power of the Crown should be reduced, but that the influence of the people should be reduced. It had been well said by Montesquieu that the existence of freedom in England mainly depended on the right of petition by public meetings, and the freedom of the public press. How alarming was it to see the former nearly annihilated by the bill for preventing meetings, and the latter about to fall under the enactments of the measure now in progress. He besought the House to weigh well the consequences which would attend the present bill before it gave it its sanction. At least it ought to be rendered temporary. The sentiments which he had uttered were those of

Mr. J. Smith said, he could not refrain from delivering his sentiments on that part of the bill which required recognizances and securities, convinced as he was that it must be ruinous to a useful body of men. Some objections to it were so evident that they met every eye, and yet no necessity had been shown for enacting it. He himself had at one time great apprehensions from the blasphemous and seditious press, but his mind was set at rest on the subject by the speech of an hon. and learned gentleman last night, who had proved that juries were not unwilling to convict when the prosecution was judiciously commenced, and the trial properly conducted. That speech remained unanswered, and appeared to him unanswerable. That the law-officers of the Crown had not tried the strength of the existing laws, as they ought to have done, before they demanded an alteration of them, was evident from events that came under his own observation. Nothing could exceed his surprise at reading an account of the Smithfield meeting of July last, and at finding that the chairman was not prosecuted for the language of the resolutions signed by him. By one of these resolutions the persons who concurred with the chairman declared that they would not obey the laws beyond the beginning of next year; by another, that they would not pay taxes beyond a certain period; and by a third, that the national debt was a swindling concern on the part of the House of Commons, and ought not to be liquidated. He took it for granted, as he just then arrived in town, that the individual who presided at the meeting, and whom he had never seen in his life, would be brought to trial, and that he then should see him. He concluded that the law could not be allowed to sleep, and that the only question would be, whether the language was merely seditious or not also treasonable. Certain it was that no government could long exist which allowed any portion of the people to pass such resolutions. He really believed that if a prosecution had been immediately instituted against the parties to the Smithfield meeting, the late fatal occurrences at Manchester might never have taken place. Why was not the law enforced, and offenders brought