The Sun.
London, England, 1819-12-10 00:00:00

SEDITIOUS AND BLASPHEMOUS LIBELS.

On the consideration of the Report ot this Bill,
a discussion of considerable length ensued.
Lord HOLLAND said, he considered the 8.11 as
it then stood, to be unnecessary, and likely to
prove mischievous. He felt it his duty to suggest
several amendments, With a view to render it less
objectionable. Noble Lords had complained that
bla,phemous puhlications had much increased ;
but he believed they had not in proportion ►o the
issues from the press generally. The greater pry
of the Noble Lord's arguments were directed
against those parts of the Bill which related to
the publication of seditious libel. To several of
its provisions, in this resprc►, he strongly object-
ed, and to the correction of those his proposed
Amendments were chiefly directed. The import
of the word, seditious libels was, he contended, far
front being sufficiently clear or definite. He was
the more anxious on this head, as the Bill went
to affix t►ea' pnnishn►ents. Indeed, he thought
the proposed enactments were well worthy a re-
ference to the Judges, as, perhaps, in no in-
stance were .the rights of British
.subjects none
involved. He considered the introduction ot
banishment as an alternative of punishment, as
highly objectionable, and among others, in a
political' point of view, as eventually tending
to afford foreign countries a pretext for -inter-
ference in the domestic concerns of this ; he
considered it as inconsistent with a long standing
principle of English Law. Indeed, he was op-
posed to the application of additional punish-
ments, as he thought the repressing of the offences
in question were n►uth better left to the existing
laws of the land. The Noble Lord concluded by
proposing several Amendments (of which some
were of a verbal nature) tending to give effect to
what he had particularly advanced in argument.

The Earl of HARROWBY contended that the
law as it then stood was greatly inadequate to
meet or repress the growing
ielvoi,llse%rm!slaoitategtg rl oar..
The punishments were not,
valet' as the Noble Lord seemed to think, for

Lord ERSKINE spoke at some length. Ilis sen-
timents were generally opposed to the measure,
and he particularly censured the removal of per-
sons convicted of blasphemous or seditious libels
to infant colonies, as likely to corrupt or vitiate
:he society in those Establishments. The exist-
ing laws were in his mind adequate to the pro-
posed end—a power of increased punishment al-
ready existed. Of these the Noble and. Learned
Lord adduced some illustrations. With the amend-
tnent proposed by his Noble Ft ieud ( Lord E.) he
disagreed ; the latter part of it he conceived to he
enneeessary, and he suggested the propriety of its
•missiou. He was adverse to any thing tending
to diminish the constitutional rights of the people,
end they were entitled to the discussion o: many
topics, which coeld not be fairly said to be enter-
ed into with at, intention to subvert the Govern.-
flout of the country.
Earl BATHURST ably supported the Bill, and
argued that its•provisions were called for by the
obvious necessity of the case. y were pal
o-
cularly calculated to meet the dangerous offence
of seditious libels, but he d:ffered aeeerially from
the Noble and Learned Lord respecting the sys-
tem of transportre ion to lioany Bay. A different
species of punishment front that. of transportatihn,
was proeided for at the discretion of the Judges,
and the terror of the additional puuishment was
most likely to operate beneficially. Upon the
wltrele, beconceived that no sound objection was
offered the Bill as proposed.
Lord HOLLAND spoke at some length in ex-
planation; he supported the objections adduced
by his Noble Friend (Lord Erskine), and seemed
to entertain strong dollits as to the propriety of
aereeing to the Amendment proposed by the
Noble Lord near hint (Lott! Ellenborough). The
offence of sedition was not defined with sufficient
distinctive accuracy.
,The question •of Annual
Parliaments and Universal Stiff+ age may be discus-
sed abstractedly without ally fair imputation of a
design to overthrow the established Govern•
men:. Ile was against any thing in the nature
of a violent inuendo. Many productions may so
he construed as tending to bring the Govern inent
into hatred and con,empt, but which would
Well short, as he. coin elven them, of the ideas of
the Noble Lords opposite, one of whom, on a
hirm,:r night, he 'unders:ood o say, that the mea-
sure went chiefly to refer to Malignant and Sedi-
tious Libels. Part of the Noble Lord's Amend-
ment he thought unohjectuniable, but the test he
thought it woulo be better to omit. To speak of
an intention to sativert the Government by acts of
violence he had no objection, hut any language
short of implying such an intention, he thought
should not be introduced ono the
'llse Earl of 11411KoWBY and Lord HOLLAND
respectively explained.
The Earl -ot LIVERPOOL adverted to the diffi-
culty of precisely defining the import of the words
." Seditious Libel," in Acts. of Legislation. To a
certain extent, it was unavoidably left loose and
general. The language of the Amendment (we
understood the Noble Minister to say) was appro-
priate. The Bill, however, only affected the pre-
vious case of libel, -as it provided an additional
punisliment in a certain case, and the real question
as to the decision of what was a Seditious Libel,
was still left to the discretion of the Jury.
Lords HOLLAND and ELLENBOPOUGH again
spoke in explanation, as did Lord,EaStetNit.
The LORD CHANCELLOR seemed of opinion that
publications tending to bring into contempt either
lloese of Parliament were clearly seditious ;
but the words should be used generally when de-
' signaling the offence in legislation. With re-
spect to what was said of the publication of a
Noble Duke (now no more), as reerring to An-
nual Parliaments and Universal Suffrage, were tie
in a situation so as to give an opinion upon it at
the time, he should have no hesitation, on the
pt inciple of its tending to bring either [louse of
Parliament into hatred and contempt, in saying
that it was a seditious libel.

After some further conversation, in which the
Earl of DARNLEY delivered his sentiments, the
ptOviso or amendment proposed by Lord ELLEN-
BuUOUGH, was agreed to those suggested by
Lord HOLLAND Were in general rejected.

The Bill was thet► oitivred ro be read the third
time toi-inerrokr, and the Earl of CARNATtVON an-
nounced his invention of submitting to the House
a motion to liu►ir the duration of the Bill.
STATE OF TWO NORTHERN COUNTIES.

The EMI of STRATI-11%1°Ra expresetl his regret
at the absence, front indispotition, of a Noble