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

were the ohiects of this 11.11 ? First, it was to
compress publications within a certain range—
to shackle it with recogoizances from the par-
ties themselves, and sureties from their friends ;
secondly, to add the punishment of ba-
nishment to time second offeece, of a blas-
phemous or sedilions libel. Now he meant to
say, tl,st the first proposition was a' gross violation
of the Liberty of the Press: Surety bad never
ye: been demanded but when an individual bad
offended the law, or hail shown himself on the
road to do so by some overt ac'. Bitt to demand
security merely on the liresuniption that a malt
would offend the bray, he would repeat, was a
most monstrous proposition—such proposition as
proceeded from some ultra Tory, who was satis-
fied to seek his definition of liberty it, the Justi-
nian Code. Under the present vague definition
of libel. would any Gentlrtnan in that House, he
would ask, be ready to become responsible for
atioater engaged in the daily occupation of the
political press ? and this, when extended to a class
of men with whom the loss of their sureties would
be the total loss of fortune, would go much far-
ther in its operation. The consequence of this
was, to throw the whole weight of recognizences
on authors ; wtriclt, when considered, would be
found to be of the gceetest importance to the
Constitution.. No than would be able to il4ibliSh
his .sentiments on the transactions of his own
day, unless he be able to lock up 12001.-6001. for
himself, and 600/, for his publisher. He, would
not believe th tt a Right Honourable Gentleman
(Mr. Canning), who sat on the right hand of
the Noble Lord who had introduced the Bill, and
whose literary labours were so well known, had
given -his -assent to that proposition, until he
should hear him assert it himself. He would
vetstatre to say that of all the species of
Censorship that had ever been devised, the tnost
contemptible was thot of money 1 This Bill said
to a humble man of genius, 'lsere you 12,001. ?
If not you may go about your business ! To the
rich it says—Go you and enlighten sae ! Pass
this Bill, and the humble member of the rejisiblic
of letters will exist no longer ! We shall have a
baneful aristocratical Sate indeed. lie would be
glad to ask the Noble Lord, if Dr. Johnscm„ or
any whet- of Those eminent essayists or sa irises of
recent date, who Were of the class of hand. to.
month Aurhors could have gone to press if the
present Bill had been in existence ? He objected
to the puoisloneor of banisloneut, because he
thought it the most unequal of all punishuienta.—
To the man who had no ties in :his country it
would be no punishment ; but to the Man who
had such ties it wound be worse than death. If
the off, nee hall), ned to be one of a domestic na-
ture, the offender would be well recei
ed on the Continent ; but if it should be
one in is ii ch all the Powers of the Continent
would make common cause with the Govern-
ment of this Country, the unfortunate victim
would be chaced tronm.territory to territory in a
most snotty Mlle manner. He equally strongly
objected to that provision of the Bill which gave
to Judges the power of inflicting unlimited im-
prisonment. If punishmetits were to be super-
added in this manner, it would be well to con-
sider the effect such a system would have on the
minds of Jurymen. Would they not be taught
to take into their consideration the over-severity
of the law, in subjecting criminals to its =visita-
tion by their decisitere? Ile implored the House to
consider without delay, what :he Press was,, with
all its faults—to remember what it had heretoforet
done. He didahitsk tthat the lowest and most
grovelling portion of time Press .bad degraded it-
self; iHtt he thought at the same time there was
a natural remedy for it, and until that temedy
had been applied, and its result known, no new
measures of restriction on it should be laid
before the House. But it was on behalf of the
respectable part of the Press that he most espe-
cially called upon them to reflect. it was that
he asked of them to cherish with the most scru-
pulous and religious care. He begged pardon
of the House for leaving detained them so long,
when such important discussions were pending
fur their deliberation.--(Hear, hear !)
Mr. DICKENSON denied that the Law of Libel
was of that vague nature asserted by the Hon.
Gentleman, When Gentlemen came to consider,
they would find that the "mature of seditious sad
blasphemous libel had its beginning in inveterate
malice against the object of its rancour. With
regard to the punishment of 'banishment, of which
the Hon. Geotleneretr trail s'afir-so much, it would
be found to be in the spirit of the old Constitution
of time countly. And it was a punishment of that
nature that it was in the fmcitver of the Legislature
to soften as to duration. Bishop Atterbury and
Lord Clarendon had both had the term •of their
banishment shortened. According to-Sir Matthew
Hale, time whole history of our Constitution wits
but a history of the changes which times and cir-
cumetances had rendered necessary. 11e regarded
the present Bill not as an infringeurent of the
just rights and liberties of the subject, but as a
measure necessarily opposed to the romarchy and
tehelhon that threatened to overwhelm the coun-
try, and be trusted that that House would set an
example of firmness, by giving the peaceable and
well disposed thst protection which they had a
right to require.

•
Mr. Serjeant UNSLOW expressed hi,s concur-
rence in every word which had tidier) from time

Honourable Meaiber who had just down.. He
had heard his Hon. Fciend (Mr. Macdonald) with
that satisfaction which his great elouluence was
so well Calculated to produce, but. either himself
or his Iforiourable Friend must be considerably
tuistahen in the enactments of the Bill.. Since
he heard him, he (Mr. Serieatit Onslow) had
again looked kJ the provisions of it, and in oPpo-
Sitio!) to the assumption of his Li on op able
Friend, he thd not see one word, which, in them,
applied to the author. It was against printers
and publishers by profession that its enactuttnts
were directed. 'The mischief against which it
sought to provide, arose from the ec s of obscure

rinttrs and publishers, who, urged on vby
hers,- were cateless inlprisoninent, and be-

Mg ini desperate eireimistances, gave their itaines
for t:ie purpose of getting a livelihood,-,
These were the desciiptiou of persons com-
prehended within the Bill, anti not authors. The
other Bill relative to the press
.was so connected
in principle the preitot that i.r wax