The Sun.
London, England, 1819-12-21 00:00:00

almost impossible in discussion to separate tbeuid:
His Honourable Friend (Mr. Mecdoneld) had ‘o
veiled to the case of ?Jr. Hone, and dre4v,i,
illustration from that trial to prove the 1180'1;
of the increased penalty out a second convicti°o
‘Vith respect to that trial, he never would,
the decision of a British Jury, make any invits
oils comment ;—(Hear, hear !)—but he mogs
allowed to say, that the difficulties to a verdict of
guilty against blasphemous: libels were increAsto
The proposed Bill did not, however, applY
b,
triels progressively going on, but to libels Pip
Hefted subsequently to the first convictioto
was for the purpose of suppressing the
publicetioes of those who, in defiance of the Issjl
were inveterately determined on the coetinitso
Of the offence, that the penalty of banishment bit
introduced. The principle of such a peuishoebiu
was not new as had been argued ; it was to
found in the ancicut practice of the abjeratioa.'
the ;calm. There were many offences to whit)
transportai ion was now affixed, and to which,
nishmeat as a milder punishment would, ill 1)1
judgment, he beneficially applied. Banishow,„
inflieted no stain on the connexions—it did 0
send a man to the other extremity of the globc‘t;
pass his life, not indeed as a slave, but deprif
certainly of all tree agency. In all legislative 4'll
liberations, the question turned upon the toter°
lion of the greater or the lesser evil; and it 0:4
better that some individuals should be prevell4
from the prosecution of an employment, than tll4
the country should continue longer exposed tD
the deliberate attempts made for the last avg.
years to poison, by the most flagitious libels, t I
majority of the people. These attempts h __4
ad a'
succeeded, still they were not inefficient to a.cco
taro extent, and great mischief was the result.
Mr. M`DONALD explained.
Mr. GRAHAM, thought no man could mare ft'
Bret the excesses that bad taken piece than 'l4‘
did—though no man could more detest the bill'
',heinous publications which hail issued frosts tliS
press—still thought it desirable that the 1-1041,
should pause before they passed the Measure 450
before them, which in his opioion would eats'i
tielly alter the law of the land, and shake one°
the great safeguards of the Constitutiou. 134
flagrant abuse of a might was always the first cool
of tyranny in rulers. They were therefore lII'S
worst friends of freedom who stimulated the f4l
ple to insubordination, and were, in fact, the woof
enemies of those whose cause they affecteel
espouse, who encouraged .the diseetuitiation
blasphemous and seditious writings, and eve*
doubtless, only aninieted by a wish to rise throwill
bloodshed, and over the ruins of the coulee/ 11,
absolute power. It was, however, the duty
that House riot to be led away, by the panic
the moment even to repress such evils,.l7/
adopting measures so coer:ive s-s to he fey
to that liberty which bad long been the ieto4
Englishmen.raf Having salt! thus noech on'
general principles, be would now state f)-3"
particular objections to the Bill. it was :4$
necessary for him to -declaim in favour of 10
Liberty of the Press as the palladium oloti
rights--the best protection for the liberty of elso
subject, arid a power of strength opposed ro 51iIi
attempts to govern this country by a MMus/
force. It would not be well to hold such lerng4oo
set r the means of a fortress at the moment 400
the enemy was before it, and likely to .carry •ta
strong hold. Such at present be thought th
case of the Liberty of the Press, which, in 110
judgment, would be sebverted if the present tam
sure was carried. At present, though every 0:33°
might publish what be pleased, yet be was liabie
to he called to answer for such publication. andibl
Juries were then to judge out only of the act Q#
the Defendant, but of the intention with whiCli
such act had been committed. With lits
law as it Lad hitherto stood, and with a'S
powers, recently given, he thought the Misti"
stern were already armed with the means of le
pressing every abuse. But the Government eve°
not of this opinion, and they now called .614
for the power of inflicting additional punish's-05
alter conviction, and then they required an addi'
aortal stamp ditty to attach on every small publi'
cation. On the first point he would remark, ILO
this Bill was not likely to answer the purpose Of
which it was to be brought in.. The full penalty
already euthorised by law was never intlicee,de so'
therefore to enact severer punishments wouldooif
be to increase the difficulty of .procuring a tow
viction. Though an Hon. Gentleman (the Mica)"
ber for Somersetshire) had spoken of. hanieblisol
as being a common punishment in the good 0
times of the Constitution, which good tisoes I 1
found in the times of the Stuarts, he (Mr. ay
ham) would still contend that banishment was'
punishment, unknown to the law of England.
Scotland he believed it haul once been known, Or
certainly, at one unhappy period, it had be°
known to Ireland, hut never, if he mistook -N
ta the law of England. To this ponishuseue
objected, on account of its unequal pressure cola
different individuals. To the rich mail it to s
milder, to the poor man a severer Punishineirt
transportation. A poor man transported ,sas few
out and maintained at the public expellee.
stripped of all and banished, and left penoylees.ts
a foreign shore, what could he do but libel 11"
country to .get bread, or die to :disgrace it, fry
want lie disapproved of dee right to be .giO
to search the prenii-SeS of a person convicted of s
~,
He would neither consent that the stibiw
should be exposed to a search by night for ail
nor by day for newspapers or squibs. He wo
not notch object to the principle of imposiagA
stamp dory on cheap publications, but he te r's"
considerable difficulties would be found in the 10/

of reducing it to practice ; and under the nefieY6'
tern he fealed that a poor man would find an 001)'
stacle opposed to the publication of his sentiments
on many topics that were most intercstin4
the
all men. The present 1301 was called for on ";
plea of necessity, but while the existing laws weii
110 t acted upon to their fullest extent, this Cou
trot 'fairly be urged. In 1818, no prosecutions 1/Ik'f,'
been itistilitted by the Attorney-General.
1619 several had been commenced, and the °
fending individual had been convicted, and IC:
verely punished. He did not impute such ""c;
sign to Ministers, but some parts of their eondus
would almost want alit a suspicion that the ibur,e
had been suffeted to exist and to increase; to
of
der to bring Into general disrepute the Ljberti