The Sun.
London, England, 1819-12-07 00:00:00

,

EPRiCP4 SEVENPENCE.

•
encertairoy ; and on account of the iorreas-4.
ed difteuley of obtaining verdicts against the ae-
cnsed, in reference to thecontineeney of a great
iec: case:in the ptinishrio:nt, as Juries an such cases
were More fregirently sWayed by the feelings of
hurnanity, than by the strict letter of the law.
. ELLFkiimtiOUGH (in a first speech) strong-
ly supported the measutee which lie conceived nee
cesSary, with a view of repressing those samples
of wickedness and dangerous sedition, which were
of late so exten'siv'ely published. The hope of
increased gain was undoubtedly one of the mu--
tire's for Sending forth such productions as were
calculated to deprive the poor man of his best
hope
.in.the Consolations of religion, men of pro- -
perry of:Ate-b. strict right to the etijoymeneof it,
and to sap.. the foundation of our glorious and
happy 'Constitutiou•—(Hear, hear !)---With re-
"spect to au alteration in the law of libel, in •consie
debit; that; voinre,theitetordships barrio look to
the alteration in the state of those things to which'
it applied, in the course of the last twenty years,
and he thought that they must deem it quite clear
that some new regulatiems were necessary in re-
pressing the iojenions licentiousness of the press ;
and it appeared to him, that there was little
other choice than that of increasing the severity
of the 'punishment. Notwithstanding the opinion
entertained by the Noble Marquess, and other
Noble Lords, for whom he had a high respect, het
retained these sentiments of the measure, of the.
necessity
.of which, in the present state of things,
he was fully convinced.
Lord Hoteaen addressed the House at consi-
derable length upon the occasion. lie strongly
disapproved of the Bill itself, but still more so as
formiug a part of that coercive system which Mi-
llisters thought proper to recommend at the pre-
sent crisis. lie contended there was no intelli-
gible ground laid even fur the preamble of the
Bill, and that rule of Parhameotaty 10, is upon
which ttiey professed to act, namely, their ethyl.-
Mg a restrictive and unconstitutional system, out
of tendeini'ss to the liberty of the subject, and for
love of the Constitution, was fully us unfounded.
The people's veneration for their religion, accord-
ing to the Noble Viscount, must have been great•
Iv ellsoged indeed, when they recollected it wes
not ',hove live or six years ago, is hen even the
very floor of that House was covered wilh their
petitions, complaining of an apprehended intrittee-
went of it ; and yet now these very people svere
said to be in danger of imbibing principles of in-
fidelity. There sees no evidence before them es
to the extent of those evils, nor even of the ex-
isting laws being tried to put them down, and yet
hey came for an ineseased power of punishment,
A sufficient line of distinction was not drawn
het wrest) the offences contemplated in the Bill,
though in their ()Attires very different. The offence
of libel was yet far from being satisfactorily de•
fined, and there was scarcely a political writer of
eminence ern record, front Lord :sowers down
to Air. Burke, but iii some part of his works may
nut he chargeeble with libel; end literary charac-
ters, who had touched upon politics, from Miltol
to Steele, may he chargeable in-like manner. He
repeated one of his reasons for opposing the Bill
was, the company it kept. He deprecated that,
under such circumsta»ces as the present, new pee
nishmeets and flew rules of. evidence eliouhl be re-
so,t ed to, instead of measures of a contrary ten-
dency—a system, the principle of which would,
more than any other, impress the people with the
idea of there being no common teelit-ig between
them and the Parliament, and on these grounds
he deemed it his duty to say, Not Content to the
Bill.

The LORD CHANCELLOR vindicated the line of
policy adopted by Alinisters, and contended for
the necessity of the proposed measure, which he
deemed called for by the perilous situation iu
which the country Wtl4 placed. He felt it
however unwilling he was to trouble their
Lordships, to remain silent after some statements
made that evening. The noble Lord must have
foto; the whole history of the law of libel, it be
c,merived this Bill contained a novel provision, in
vesting the punishment in the discretion of the
Court. The Joogesi had always possessed a power
of mitigating or varying the puni,hment. Such a
discretionary power was even given to them by
the Constittoion. The extraordinary provisions
of the Bill, such as they were, were indispensably
called for by tie extent and increased criminaliiy
of the practice every day, with respect to the puh-
lication of libels, and with a view to checking
that extensive increase. The Noble Lord was
also incorrect in alleging that the effect of the ex-
isting laws was not. tried. No mode which the
law allowed bad been left untried, and the Beres-
sity of recurring to Parliament for additional
nower was foulid indispensable. He Incalit not to
impugn the general conduct of J.uties ; he be-lieved
they did their duties, but cases were known some-
times to miscarry in their han,!s. The provisions
or the Bill miglat be amended on sobsequetst dis-
cussion ; but the irnmetiiate quest!ctn, was it or
not expedient to enact something that would be
effectual) towards suppres,ing tote evi!s complained.
of ? Un this'he entertained no. doubt whatever,
and upon rltat ptiociple,he should give his vote.
in the discussion which followed, the Earls'
GREV and JILESSINGTON spoke against the Bill,
The Earl of LIVERPOOL at some length, &poke
in soppott of the measure.
The Doke of Susscz said, that until Ministers

had shown that the present iskvs fur the suppres-
sion of blasphemous ant? seditious publications
%vere insignificant, lie could out vote fur new wits.

Ills Royal Highness observed, that he entirely
agreed with theft) in the principles of the other.
Bills now beloie the House, but to this be.would
Dive a tiegotive.—(l-tear !)
Lord lIOLLAND explaiasd. After whi.ll the