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?