The printer of the daily news is surely the proper object of your indignation, who inserted this libel in his paper, without the fondness of an author, and without the temptation of a bribe; a bribe, by the help of which it is usual to circulate scurrility. To this man the expense or labour of aspersing the government was recompensed by the pleasure, and he could not prevail on himself to omit any opportunity of incensing the people, and exposing at once the whole legislature to censure and contempt.
Those, therefore, that have concurred in the imprisonment of the author, will doubtless join with me in requiring the attendance of his officious accomplice, and I cannot forbear expressing my hopes, that he will not meet with kinder treatment.
It is far from being the first offence of his licentious press; and the lenity of the government, by which he has been so long spared, has had no other effect upon him, than to add confidence to his malice, and incite him to advance from one degree of impudence to another.
He has for several weeks persisted in misrepresenting the intention of the embargo, by letters pretended to be written by friends of the government who are injured by it. He has vented his insinuations hitherto, as without punishment, so, as it appears, without fear. It is time, therefore, to disturb his security, and restrain him from adding one calumny to another.
Sir John BARNARD rose up hereupon, and opposed this motion in terms to the following effect:—Sir, the end of punishment is to prevent a repetition of the same crime, both in the offender, and in those who may have the same inclinations; and when that end is accomplished, all farther severities have an appearance rather of cruelty than justice.
By punishing the author of this libel, we have, in my opinion, sufficiently secured our dignity from any future attacks, we have crushed the head of the confederacy, and prevented the subordinate agents from exerting their malice. Printers can do no injury without authors; and if no man shall dare to write a libel, it is not worthy of our inquiry how many may be inclined to publish it.
But if the printer must necessarily be punished before the resentment of the house can be satisfied; if it shall not be thought sufficient to punish him without whose assistance the other could not have offended; let us, at least, confine our animadversion to the present fault, without tracing back his life for past misdemeanours, and charging him with accumulated wickedness; for if a man's whole life is to be the subject of judicial inquiries, when he shall appear at the bar of this house, the most innocent will have reason to tremble when they approach it.
Even with regard, sir, to the offence of which he is now accused, somewhat may, perhaps, be said in extenuation of his guilt, which I do not offer to gratify any personal affection or regard for him, to whom I am equally a stranger with any other gentleman in this house, but to prevent a punishment which may be hereafter thought disproportioned to the crime.
It is, sir, to be remembered, that he was not the original printer of the libel, which he only reprinted from a paper, of which he knew that it was to be dispersed at our door, and in which he could not naturally suspect any seditious or dangerous assertions to be contained. It is, therefore, probable that he fell into the offence by ignorance, or, at worst, by inadvertency; and, as his intention was not criminal, he may properly be spared.
Mr. WINNINGTON spoke, in answer, to this effect:—Sir, I cannot but think the honourable gentleman betrayed, by his zeal for the defence of this man, into some assertions not to be supported by law or reason. If it be innocent to print a paper once printed, will it not inevitably follow, that the most flagitious falsehoods, and the most enormous insults on the crown itself, the most seditious invectives, and most dangerous positions, may be dispersed through the whole empire, without any danger but to the original printer? And what reason, sir, can be assigned, why that which is criminal in one man, should be innocent in another?
Nor is this the only position which has been advanced contrary to the laws of our country; for it has been asserted, that the general character of an offender is a consideration foreign from that of his immediate crime; and that whatever any man's past life has been, he is only to be judged according to the evidence for the offence which is then the subject of examination.
How much this opinion is consistent with the practice of our courts, a very slight knowledge of their methods of proceeding will readily discover. Is any villain there convicted but by the influence of his character? And is not the chief question at a trial the past conduct of the person at the bar?
Sir John BARNARD rose here, and spoke thus:—Sir, I rise up only to answer a question, which is, whether properly or not, put to me, and hope the irregularity will not be imputed to me, by the house, but to the occasion which produces it.
I am asked, whether it is not the chief question at the bar of our courts of justice, what is the character of the prisoner? and cannot but feel some amazement that any man should be so ignorant of common proceedings, and so much unacquainted with the execution of our laws, as to have admitted a notion so chimerical.
The character of the prisoner is never examined, except when it is pleaded by himself, and witnesses are produced to offer testimony in his favour; that plea, like all others, is then to be examined, and is sometimes confuted by contrary evidence. But, the character of a criminal, though it may be urged by himself as a proof of his innocence, is never to be mentioned by his prosecutor as an aggravation or proof of his guilt. It is not required by the law, that the general character of a criminal, but that the particular evidence of the crime with which he stands charged, should be examined; nor is his character ever mentioned but by his own choice.
Sir William YONGE spoke next, to the effect following:—Sir, to prove the malignity of the intention with which this libel was inserted in the daily paper, it cannot be improper to observe, that the embargo has been for many days past the favourite topic of this printer, and that, therefore, it was not by accident that he admitted so zealous an advocate for his opinions to be seasonably assisted by the circulation of his paper, but that he, doubtless, was delighted with an opportunity of dispersing sedition by means of greater abilities than his own.
Nor can it be justly pleaded, sir, in his favour, that he was encouraged to publish it by the confidence with which he saw it dispersed; for it was printed by him in the morning, and not brought hither till the afternoon. I cannot, therefore, but conclude, that his intentions were agreeable to his practice, and that he deserves to accompany the author in his present confinement.
The advocate, CAMPBELL, spoke next, to this purpose:—Sir, I hope it will not be imputed to me as disregard of the government, or neglect of the honour of this house, that I declare myself, on all occasions like this, inclined to lenity, and think it necessary always to proceed by regular methods, and known forms of justice, not by capricious determinations, and orders variable at pleasure.
I opposed the imprisonment of the man who just now appeared at the bar of our house, and am still more unwilling to proceed to severities against another, who is criminal only in a subordinate degree. The loudest declaimers against these men cannot have stronger detestation of falsehood and sedition than myself; but however flagrant may be the crimes, they may be punished with unjustifiable rigour, and, in my opinion, we have already proceeded with severity sufficient to discourage any other attempts of the same kind.
Whether it will promote the advantage of the publick, and the efficacy of our deliberations, to deter any man from the common practice of giving us information by delivering papers at our door, must be considered by the house.
Nor is it less worthy of our most attentive inquiry, whether it is not more reasonable to prosecute this offender in the common forms of justice, than to punish him by any act of uncontroulable, unaccountable authority? Whether it is not more reasonable to have him prosecuted before a judge unprejudiced, and a disinterested jury, than to act at once as party, evidence, and judge? I have no desire, sir, of diminishing the privileges of this house; and yet less would I contribute to establish any precedents of unlimited power or arbitrary punishments.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL then spoke to the following effect:—Sir, whence so much tenderness can arise for an offender of this kind, I am at a loss to discover, nor am I able to conceive any argument that can be produced for exempting from punishment the printer of a paper, which has been already determined, by the vote of the house, to be a scandalous libel, tending to promote sedition.
It has been, indeed, agreed, that there are contained in the paper some true positions, and some passages innocent, at least, and perhaps rational and seasonable. But this, sir, is nothing more than to say, that the paper, flagitious as it is, might have been swelled to a greater degree of impudence and scurrility; that what is already too heinous to be borne, might, by greater virulence, become more enormous.
If no wickedness, sir, is to be checked till it has attained the greatest height at which it can possibly arrive, our courts of criminal judicature may be shut up as useless; and if a few innocent paragraphs will palliate a libel, treason may be written and dispersed without danger or restraint; for what libel was ever so crowded with sedition, that a few periods might not have been selected, which, upon this principle, might have secured it from censure.
The danger of discouraging intelligence from being offered at the door of our house, does not alarm me with any apprehensions of disadvantage to the nation; for I have not so mean an opinion of the wisdom of this assembly, as to imagine that they can receive any assistance from the informations of their officious instructors, who ought, in my opinion, sir, rather to be taught by some senatorial censure to know their own station, than to be encouraged to neglect their proper employments, for the sake of directing their governours.
When bills, sir, are depending, by which either the interest of the nation, or of particular men, may be thought to be endangered, it is, indeed, the incontestable right of every Briton to offer his petition at the bar of the house, and to deliver the reasons upon which it is founded. This is a privilege of an unalienable kind, and which is never to be infringed or denied; and this may always be supported without countenancing anonymous intelligence, or receiving such papers as the authors of them are afraid or ashamed to own, and which they, therefore, employ meaner hands to distribute.
Of this kind, sir, undoubtedly, is the paper now under our consideration, of which I am far from imagining that it was drawn up by the man who declares himself the writer, and am, therefore, convinced of the necessity of calling the printer to the bar, that whatever the lenity or justice of this assembly may determine with regard to his punishment, he may be examined with respect to the real authors of the libel; and that our resentment may fall upon him, who has endeavoured to shelter himself by exposing another.
Counsellor ORD spoke to this effect:—Sir, I am inclined to believe, that the persons associated in writing and dispersing this paper, whosoever they may be, are of no high rank, or considerable influence; as it is not likely that any man who had much to hazard, would expose himself to the resentment of the whole legislature; but let us not for that reason exert our superiority in wanton punishments, or tyrannise merely because we cannot be resisted. Let us remember that the same justice and the same humanity is due to the meanest, as the highest of our fellow-subjects; and that there is even less necessity of rigorous measures, as the attack is less formidable.
But, sir, there is one motive to moderation that has seldom been found less efficacious than the consideration of the laws of justice or humanity. We ought to be withheld by regard to our posterity, and even to ourselves, from any exorbitant extension of our privileges. We know, that authority once exerted, is claimed afterwards by prescription. And who knows by what sudden rotation of power he may himself suffer by a precedent which he has concurred to establish, and feel the weight of that oppressive power which he first granted for the punishment of another?
Mr. HOWE spoke thus:—Sir, I am always unwilling to oppose any proposal of lenity and forbearance, nor have now any intention of heightening the guilt of this man by cruel exaggerations, or inciting the house to rigour and persecution.
But let us remember, sir, that justice and mercy are equally to be regarded, and while we pity the folly of a misguided, or, perhaps, a thoughtless offender, let us not suffer ourselves to be betrayed, by our compassion, to injure ourselves and our posterity.
This house, sir, has always claimed and exerted the privilege of judging of every offence against itself, a privilege so long established, and so constantly exercised, that I doubt whether the inferiour courts of judicature will take cognizance of an attack upon us; for how can they venture to decide upon a question of such importance without any form or precedent for their proceedings.
There seems also to be at this time, sir, an uncommon necessity for tenaciousness of our privileges, when, as some whispers, which have been wafted from the other house, inform us, a motion has been made in terms which might imply the subordination of this assembly, an assertion without foundation either in reason or justice, and which I shall always oppose as destructive to our rights, and dangerous to our constitution.
Let us, therefore, sir, retain in our hands the cognizance of this affair, and let the criminal either suffer his punishment from our sentence, or owe his pardon to our mercy.
[It was agreed that the printer of the daily paper should attend next day, when, being called in, it was proposed that he should be asked, whether he printed the paper complained of. It was objected to, for the same reason as the question about the author's being in the gallery, because the answer might tend to accuse himself; and he being withdrawn, a debate of the same nature ensued, and the question being put whether he should be asked, if he be the person that printed the daily paper shown to him, which paper the house the day before resolved to contain a malicious and scandalous libel, etc. it was, on a division, carried in the affirmative, by two hundred and twenty-two against one hundred and sixty-three: accordingly he was called in again, and being asked the question, he owned that he printed the said paper from a printed copy which was left for him with one of his servants; and being asked what he had to allege in his justification or excuse for printing the said libel, he said that as he had before printed several other things which he had received from the said person, which had not given offence, he inserted part of the paper in his news, and which he should not have inserted, if he had thought it would have given offence to the house, and that he forbore to print the remainder, having heard that it had given offence. Upon which he withdrew, and the house, after some debate, on a division, one hundred and eighty-eight to one hundred and forty-five, not only ordered him into the custody of the serjeant, but resolved to present an address to his majesty, that he would be pleased to give directions to his attorney general to prosecute him at law.
The first printer of the libel was also ordered into custody. This was on the 3d of December, but the next day presenting his petition, expressing his sorrow for the offence, whereby he had justly incurred the displeasure of the house, and praying to be discharged, he was brought to the bar on the following day, received a reprimand on his knees, and was ordered to be discharged, paying his fees.]
On the 12th, lord BARRINGTON presented a petition from the printer of the daily paper, expressing his sorrow, promising all possible care not to offend for the future, and praying to be discharged.
This petition being read, a motion was made, that the serjeant at arms do carry the petitioner to some court of law, to give security for his appearance to the prosecution to be carried on against him by the attorney general; which done, that he be discharged, paying his fees.
Sir William YONGE spoke to this effect:—Sir, I know not for what reason this enormous offender is entitled to so much regard, or by what interest he has engaged so many, who, I doubt not, abhor his crimes, to pity his sufferings.
Had he been young and unexperienced, and seduced into the commission of this offence by artifice or persuasion, his act might have been reasonably considered rather as an errour than a crime, and it might have been proper to treat with lenity a delinquent neither obstinate nor malicious.
But how, sir, can this plea be urged in favour of a man, whose daily employment it has been, for these two years past, to misrepresent the public measures, to disperse scandal, and excite rebellion, who has industriously propagated every murmur of discontent, and preserved every whisper of malevolence from perishing in the birth.
The proper judge, sir, of this affair, is his majesty's attorney general, who is not now in the house. I am, therefore, for detaining him in custody, and for referring the consideration of farther proceedings against him to that gentleman, whose proper province it is to prosecute for the crown.
Mr. WALLER spoke next, to the following purpose:—Sir, it is undoubtedly the duty of every man to oppose the introduction of new laws, and methods of oppression and severity, which our constitution does not admit; and what else is the mention of a prisoner's character as an aggravation of his present offence?
It is well known, and has been already asserted, upon this occasion, that in the lower courts of justice, though the prisoner may plead his character, in his own defence, his prosecutor is not at liberty to produce it to his disadvantage. Even those who are cited to the bar for murder or for treason, are tried only by the evidence of that crime for which they are indicted.
That this house is not bound to strict forms, and is not accountable for the exercise of its power, is easily granted; but authority cannot change the nature of things, and what is unjust in a lower court, would be in us not less unjust, though it may not be punishable.
It was replied that this question had been before sufficiently discussed.
The attorney general not being present, the debate was adjourned to the next sitting.
On the next day of the session, the lord BARRINGTON proposed, that the adjourned debate might be resumed, and several members interceded for the petitioner, that he might be released; to which it was objected, that it was not proper to release him, unless an information was lodged against him, without which he could not be held to bail; and the question being put, whether he should be released, was determined in the negative.
At the sixth sitting, the author of the libel, who was committed to the common prison of Middlesex, petitioned the house to permit him to implore pardon on his knees, and promising, by the strongest and most solemn assurances, not to offend again, was ordered to be discharged the next day, paying his fees.
On the forty-seventh sitting, the printer of the daily paper again petitioned the house, representing, that he most heartily bewailed his offence, that he was miserably reduced by his confinement, having borrowed money of all his friends to support himself, his wife, and children, and praying the mercy of the house. He was then ordered to be discharged, paying his fees, and giving security for his appearance to answer the prosecution.
On the eighty-fifth day, Mr. George Heathcote offered another petition for the said printer, and represented, that the fees amounting to one hundred and twenty-one pounds, he was not able to pay them, that, therefore, he hoped the house would consider his case; but the petition was not allowed to be brought up. On which he remained in custody fourteen days longer, till the end of the session, and, the authority of the senate ceasing, had his liberty without paying any fees.