The Works of Samuel Johnson, LL.D. Volume 10: Parlimentary Debates IJohnson, Samuel
History
The Works of Samuel Johnson, LL.D. Volume 10: Parlimentary Debates I
Johnson, Samuel
Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons -- History -- 18th century
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.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account