Star.
London, England, 1819-12-10 00:00:00

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1819.

Lord ER3ll[lll2. and Lord HOLLAND, and it was
agreed that the third reading of the Bill shoold br
postponed .till Monday, and
.that the Amendment
should be proposed in a distinct Ptim.
LIBEL esixviurrioe amt.
The Report on this Bill having been brought up,
Lord HOLLAND rose, and said, if he found ithis
duty to propose several alterations, he was not to be
understood as having changed, in any respect, the
opinion he at first expressed as to the impolicy of the
measure itself. It waionot now, however, his inten-
tion to go further into* the subject than to notice that
particular species of offence implied in the term "se-
ditious,' without proposing any Amendinent with'
regard to what were called blasphemous libel;
though he could not help again expressing his opi-
nion that there was nothing in such productions to
justify the innovation that had been made in the ea-
isting laws. Their nature and extent had been
greatly exaggerated, but their danger was to beaesti-
mated only in the psoportion which they bort to
other works, while even thus the laws already enacted'
would be sufficient to inflict a punishment common-
surate with the offence, and mere than commensurate
with the danger—(Hear, hear).—But with respect to
seditious ,libels, it appeared to him that their cha-
' teeter ought to be more accurately defined than'lt
bad been hitherto, before it was made a subject for a
new measure of penalty. •In fact, no man could
possibly tell what the precise meaning of the word
" sedition" was, and booksellers might be made
liable for works of which they had no cognizance
whatever: Thus, by a strange anomaly, the master
was made responsible for the act of his servant. He
Was not prepared to say that Noble Lords who sup-
ported this Bill, in its present form, would subject
the accused to any more severe punishment than the
offence deserved ; yet he could not help thinking,
that distinct provisions ought to be made against it:
and, with this view, he had .some Amendments to
propose, which would all fellow in a consecutive form.
—The Noble Lord then proposed that after the words
or shall publish" in the preamble of the Bill, 'all
the words be left out for the purpose of inserting the
Words " knowingly and maliciously," and also that
these words be inserted in that part of the Bill re-
lating to verdicts by default. He should readily
withdraw these Amendments for any others of more
efficacy, but until such were offered, he hoped he
• might be allowed to press them upci, the considera-
tion of their Lordships. He intended also to pro-
pose an Amendment with regard to the new punish-
ment which this Bill provided for ; and that provi-
sion was calculated to excite alike his suspicion and
surprise. The Noble Lord on the Woolsack had
said, abet he knew not how far an Amendment which
he (Lord Holland) proposed 'tight affect the analo-
gies of law, but nad their Lordships ascertained how
far this new panishment was likely to affect the an*.
logics. of law ? Had they ascertained how far it
mrht affect the property of the subject? It may,
•
however, perhaps be of a most sale: try nature, and
tend to remedy that faulty system of jurisprudence
under which Englishmen had hitherto lived; but of
this no proof had been given, and would they blindly
adept a measure without consideriug how far its
Operation might 'be advantageous Or prejudicial to
the Public • how far it might affect the legal rights
9f individuals? Banishment was a mode of punish-
ment unknown to the.laws of England, and it was
to be considered that the treatment of the person
banished must depend entirely on .the terms upon
which England might stand with that country to
which he was sent. Such being the case, it might
naturally he supposed, that if• sent to an unfriendly
country, he might experience many severities ; and if
this was at all times a strong argument against
banishment, it was particularly so at this period,
when England, by her interference in the internal
concerns of foreign States, hadexcited so many ene-
mies, who would be glad of any opportunity to rove
their resentment. He had read somewhere, in an
old book, the name of which he did not recollect,
that the reason why banishment had not been in-
cluded in the Penal Code of England, was, from a
jealousy of the interference Of foreign Power; who
might employ the persons sent to their states to ex-
cite commotions against their native country. Was
it wise, he would ask,. to sanction a measure likely to
produce 'this effect? or were the arg9ments he ad-
vanced quite chimerical? It was true,. no precedent
as to facts could be found in this country ; bat what
State had adopted the principle that 'did not afford
a facility for the direct interference of foreign Powers,
in the politics and, administration of their own ? But
the argument 'always urged against Noble •Lords on
his side of the Hcuse was, that they were'bound to
chew the meats of every measure which came under
consideration ; but why, he would ask, was the oars
prsiandi IP rest exclusively upon them i' Why were'
Noble Lords on the other side to be entirely exempt
from it? Yet it would seem they considered them-
selves so, for they said not one, word -to prove the
expediency of this new punishment. It *as evident,
however, that the analogy of the laws in this coun-
try was against it, and one fact would be sufficient
to prove it so. Banishment was recognized by the
'law of Scotland ; and some of the Gentlemen of the
North were frequently punished by sending them to
vend the remainder of their lives south of the Tweed
/augh)—which, by the way, they seldom
occasion to regret—(A 10).—Their • being only
removed to the southern part of the saint Island,
was not, however, thought a severe punishment
enough for the ends of justice, and a Bill was there-
fore introduced for sending Scotchmen out'of Eng-
land to some foreign country yet what eras the fate
of that Bill? Why, to the very great joy
. of the
Northern Exiles, who bad by this time learned
tirely to forget their native laml,. it was rejected, I
k
cause hatiiibment was not recognised. by the laws
England. • The Noble Lord cencleded, withoroo.)
posing. two other Antelidmentsr which wax
material consequence.

. . . ,
The Earl of HARR.OWBY, in the ammo( some
observations, combated the-arguments of the Noble
Lord (Holland), maintaining that the existing laws
provided no more severe punishment in cases of mis- i
demeanour, than fine and imprisonmeht, to which
the pillory might be superadded at the discretion of
the Court. This was not sulEkient .for the present,
emergency ; Jet theke could he no danger of undue
seventy, as the feelings of tin Jury, •if the case was,
not
of peculiar enormity, • would always incline to-
wards the accused.
n Actccaused. The Noble Lord read certain
extracts pasimed on the subject in 1796;
is order to prove that banishment was not unknown
Is the law of England ; it being recognized in that
Act as a punishment for a repetition of the offence. '
r t, even supposing it were iniknown; .he saw no
i con why it ought not to be now resorted to ; and
ad been jusdy said on a former night, that the
, • .of man was'too short to admit of a repetition of
same ponislunept, as an expiation for the same rcc. ~ t would, in his °pillion, bu onleLjussice to
?to transport persons who got*eirdoilybarad
y by the most impious and demoraliaieg pursuits.
Lord ELLE.NSOROUGH objected to,tbe.words
049ovelagly aid maliciously" being introduced, as
. ' in the first Amendment, because it was
site it that any roan could publish a libel
ircOpeaail
cidentally. Upon the question, whether the word
• seditibus" libel, admitted• of a definition, or not ?
be thought it did, and should now beg leave to sub--
mit to their Lordships what he thought it strictly im-
plied. It was this—that the individual was guilty of
ledition, who published any Work calculated to bring
into hatred or contempt, his Majesty's person, the
Government, or either House of• Parliament; or who
should excite the People to bring about any ahem- '
tion in existing lavis, otherwise than bylairfal means.
Should their Lordships adopt this &initial, it might
he inserted in the Bill. .
The Earl of LIVERPOOL had no objection to
the definition being adopted. ' • .
Lord ERSKINE supported the Amendments, and
argued against the punishment of transportation, as
being unnecessarily severe.- His sentiments were ge-
nerally opposed to the measure, and he particularly
censured the removal, of persons convicted of bias- •
phemoiis or seditious libels to infant Colonies,. as
likely to corrupt or vitiate the, society in those Esta-
blishments. The existing laws were,, in his mind,
adequate to the proposed'end-#-a power of increased
punishment already existed., Of these the Noble and
Learned Lord adduced some illustrations. With the
Amendment proposed by his. Noble Friend (Lord
Ellenborobgh); be disagreed; the latter part of it he
conceived to be unnecessary, and he suggested the
propriety of its omission. He was adverse to any
thing **Nadine
.so.dintinish- the Constitutional Rights
of she Viola; and tbey.wereeotitled to the dims.'
imof :limy =pies, which cook' not be fairly said
to be enterad.into with an intention Co subvert the
Government of the Country. .
' Earl BATHURST ably. suppOrted the Bill, and
argued that its pprposes were called for by the obvie
cnis necessity of the case. They were particularly
calculated to meet the dangerous offence of seditious
libels, but be differed materially from the Noble and
Loomed Lord respecting the system of transportation
mammy Bay. ' A different species of punishment
from that of transportation was provided for the dis-
eretion of the Judges, and the teems of the additional
punishment was most likely to operate beneficially.
Upon tan whole, he conceived that no sound objec-
ilea was sill'ered to the Bill as proposed.
* Lord HOLLAND then rose, and spolm in expla-
nation ; he supported the olljections adduced by his.
Noble Friend (Lord Erskine), and seemed to enter-
eain strongdoubtsus to the propriety of agreeing to
the Meettelseent proposed by the Noble Lord, near
him (Lord.Bllenborough). The offence of sedition
was not deemed with sufficient distinctive accuracy.
Tha.queatiou of Annual. Parliaments and. Universal
Suffrage may be discussed abstractedly, without any
fair imputation of a design to overthrow the esta-
blished Government. He was against any thing in
dieenature of a violent inuendo. The Noble Lord
further observed, that the Bill, as it then stood, might
apply to writers whose works were calculated to dis-
seminate knowledge and improve the' human mind.
It might prevent the litho*: or punish the exertions
of such men a's an Addison or a Swift. It might have
the'effect of repressing such genius from the most
interesting and useful fields of political or literary
discussion, by the dread of an enormous punishment
--a punishment of ignominy and exile. With respect
to its being confined to small works, be observed,
that it was likely to have the effect of driving those
,whose object was to diffuse the principles of sedition
or blasphemyi to speculate upon la works, in
wrier to accomplish that purpose. r; a writing
might be a libil, and not be a seditious libel. Ac-
cording to the law.of England, a libel was something
saber spoken or written which had a tendency to a
lispech of the peace—but a breach of she peace was
we necessarily sedition. A seditions,libel, be spoke
in* of it legally, but in the .common acceptation,
lupontsontething spoken isc smitten which excited to
'tatoillto :aid had a headiery•ao subvert the -Goiter*.
,mien by violence. ' lie thooght the :olanae ought to
'be .10 Worded, as so k ta, iodate lib* of the latter
u, which olnindir sinsish IstAlweitairsis Int. •of
i distsrbswompemisdne In .actsinf
ion
watts==beelet! eive'rsi.:l
meat. He • ,
. _ _ _
for the word 0
readering ti,
be distinctly
all words whu.._
bob that implied .
, . Lord, HAIRRa