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 enorm