HL Deb 09 December 1819 vol 41 cc973-5

The following Protests were entered on the Journals:—It was moved to insert, "with intent to excite his majesty's subjects to subvert by vio- lence the government by law established." It was resolved in the negative.

"Dissentient,

"1st. Because the crime of publishing unlawful libels has, according to the practice of English law, embraced various offences, differing in their nature, as well as their degrees of criminality, from the wilful and predetermined guilt of the actual writer and publisher, to the negligence; and sometimes even to the inevitable ignorance of the party who has been deemed guilty by construction, in respect of his pecuniary interest in the publication, or his mere civil relation to the actual publisher; and it therefore seems just and necessary, that where a discretionary punishment of increased seventy is to be enacted, it should be confined to that species of libel, which, both in its natural tendency, and in the motive of the publisher, exhibits the highest degree of malignity.

"2dly. Because the most effectual, if not the only mode of accomplishing this object, is to introduce into the statute, and consequently into the indictment or informations proceeding upon it, a precise definition of the crime which it is intended to prevent by the extension and alteration of the punishment.—By such means alone can juries, in the first instance, be apprized of the particular character of the offence imputed to the defendant, or can the judge have a certain rule to distinguish the cases in which his discretionary power is to be exercised.

3dly. Because without such exact definition as has been rejected, it is possible that judges as well as juries, may, upon different occasions differ very widely as to the meaning of the word seditious, and thereby introduce into the administration of a penal law an uncertainty which is at all times an evil, but which is particularly mischievous when the law is very severe.

(Signed)

VASSALL HOLLAND COWPER
ERSKINE ROSSLYN
CARNARVON GROSVENOR
KING LAUDERDALE
BEDFORD THANET
JERSEY AUCKLAND"

It was moved to leave out the word "banished." It was resolved in the negative.

"Dissentient,

"1st. Because the introduction of ba- nishment in the present bill seems to us a wanton and dangerous experiment. That punishment has been hitherto unknown to the law of England, and on the present occasion there has been no proof shown of its necessity, nor due examination had of its consequences. So material an innovation on a system of usages, statutes, and maxims, established without reference to any such punishment, may, by analogies and inferences of law, affect the rights of the exiles and their descendants in a manner not foreseen by the authors of the bill, nor in the contemplation of the legislature that enacts it.

"2dly. Because; banishment, from its very nature a punishment of unequal severity in different cases, may be rendered doubly so by the favour or enmity of the sovereigns, to whose dominions the exiles would most naturally resort. We doubt the justice of subjecting an Englishman, even when convicted of a political offence against the rulers of his own country, to the capricious will or arbitrary laws of a foreign government; and we question the policy of teaching men of active spirits and turbulent designs, to look to foreign favour for the mitigation of their lot, on the miscarriage of their enterprises at home. Observation of what is going on around us—reflection on what has taken place in past times—strengthen these considerations. The present situation of Europe affords us no assurance that the power of one sovereign may not be rendered subservient to the vengeance of another; and the history of free states, modern as well as ancient, admonishes us that nothing has a more direct tendency to introduce foreign influence and foreign interference in the internal affairs of a country than the banishment of state delinquents.

(Signed)

VASSALL HOLLAND ROSSLYN
ERSKINE COWPER
KING LAUDERDALE
BEDFORD THANET
JERSEY GROSVENOR."