Page images
PDF
EPUB

wavering the conduct of jurors in general; to wear away those notions relative to evidence and law, which ought ever to remain indelibly imprinted on the mind of the juror; to put men of small capacity and little knowledge up with the idea, that they are judges in equity; to make a jury a mere instrument, the sport, the play-thing, of hired advocates; to expose property, character, and life, to the effect of circumstances not at all under the controul of the possessor; and, to convert the whole society into dependents, into very slaves, of the professors of the law.

LIBEL LAWS. Before I proceed to make some further remarks upon this subject, in continuation of what was said last week, I think it proper to quote, from the Courier news paper, an article relating to the way in which libellers are handled in Ireland. It is as follows: "In the Dublin "paper, which we received a day or two ago,

66 we

་་

found an article to which we think it necessary to direct the attention of the public, premising that we know nothing "ourselves of the circumstances there "stated. We take the account as it has been "published in the Dublin papers; -"The ""editor of a paper printed in Kerry, cal"led the Kerry Dispatch, asserts that

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

'while inoffensively walking the street, • "he was called off by a common serjeant, "and, after being assailed with most

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

opprobrious language, and the most "criminal imputations, was made a pri

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors]

soner, and paraded under a military "escort through a crowd of at least one "thousand people! He was proclaimed

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

through that crowd as a public disturber "of the peace, as a fomentor of White

[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

66

"taken up, and carried before a magistrate. "But here, (supposing the account pub"lished to be correct) we never once see "the civil laws, or the magistrate or the civil "officers - we see nothing but the military. If an editor of a paper, or the author or publisher of any work, may be laid hold "of by the military, the freedom of the press would be merely nominal-stat no"minis umbra-the parent and the child of liberty would be destroyed, and that great

[ocr errors]

66

[ocr errors]

66

weapon, which has assisted so materially "in establishing the freedom of Great "Britain, and which is assisting so power"fully in the rescue of Spain and Portugal, "would be no longer formidable. Let us "take care to prevent any encroachment upon the liberty of the press. The first step

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

against it that is taken with impunity is "the first step towards slavery."—So, this gentleman of the Courier is for more law! The poor printer was seized hold of, abused, and paraded through the streets. The Courier would have preferred an indictment, or information, it seems. Every one to his taste!" Let us take care to prevent any en"croachment upon the liberty of the press!" These are bold, or rather, big, words; but, how will you take care of it? and what have you ever done to assert that liberty? I never remember any thing, in this way, done by you; but, I well remember your taking infinite pains to furnish a before-hand justif cation for an infernal act of oppression which you strongly recommended to the attorney. general; namely, the prosecution of the author who wrote an essay, published in the Morning Herald, upon the Potsdam oath of famous memory. This I remember, and I do assure you, that I think your conduct towards that author was much worse than that of the soldiers towards our Irish brother of the press.- A correspondent, whose letter will be found below, has given me an explanation of the principles, upon which the charges, in case of libel, proceed. I was quite aware, that, in a civil action, the truth of the assertions published might be proved, andthat a justification might be set up on that ground. I thank him for his information respecting Sir Fletcher Norton; but, I believe, that he will find, that the example, contrary to his wish, has been followed. This is, however, of little importance, as long as the jury aretold, that, though the charge (the truth of which they are sworn to decide upon) alledges the words called a libel to be false, they are, nevertheless, in certain cases, to find the charge true, even if the words called a libel are not proved to be false, and even if the defendant is refused permission o prove them to be true. As long as this is the

case, it matters little, indeed it matters not at all, whether the indictment charges the supposed libeller with falsehood or not. This I knew very well; but, I referred to the language of indictments to shew, that, f merly, falsehood was essential, as the ground work of a charge of libel; and that, of course, the charge fell to the ground, if the defendant proved the truth of what he had said or published. Had not this been the law, and the actual practice, at the time when indictments for libel, in the present form, were first preferred, the word false would not have been inserted in them. If the law had been content with scandalous and malicious, it would have said nothing about falsehood. But, the fact is, I believe, that, until of late years (within fifty), no one ever dreamt of maintaining a charge of libel, but upon the ground of falsehood. To promulgate truth never was, formerly, held, by the law, to be a crime. Tyrants frequently punished men for speaking or writing the truth, and they had the ready aid of their courts and juries. But, then, these were, at the time, regarded as acts of tyranny; as such, they excited hatred, and in the end, brought, in one way or another, their proper punishment. Since the time of Lord Mansfield, inclusive, to promulgate truth is coolly and gravely laid down to be criminal. It is become a settled maxim, that falsehood is not an essential quality in the crime of libel; that every word of a publication may be true; that all its sentiments may be in strict unison with morality and religion; and yet, that it may be a libel, punishable by fine, imprisonment, pillory, and, if Lord Grenville's act be not repealed, by transportation, for the second offence. Where, then, is the standard? Who is to know how far to go; for how can he tell what a jury will think scandalous and malicious, and what they will think not to possess those qualities? In what way is that freedom (of which the Courier talks so glibly as owing its birth to the press) to be assisted by the press? Let us try it a little : suppose there to be a king upon the throne, who is bent upon establishing despotic sway, and that, aided by ministers who are of the same disposition with himself, he sets about the work without any disguise. A writer

calls

upon his countrymen to be upon their guard, and gives a true description of the several despotic acts which the supposed king and his abettors have been guilty of. The writer is indicted for the offence; he is not allowed to prove his innocence by proving the truth of what he has written; and, if the matters published be thought by the jury to be scandalous and malicious, slap goes the writer to jail, where he has plenty of

[ocr errors]

ace,

time to ruminate on the 'lessings of that freedom, which comes from 'e use of the press.To drag in libels amo.st breaches of the peace is an ingenious devi of lawyers. They tend to a breach of the and are, therefore, criminal," whether. contain truth or falsehood. But, how could Mr. Peltier's libel upon Buonaparté possibly produce a breach of the peace in England? Yet was Mr. Peltier convicted by a jury, in the court of King's-Bench.- -Well, but how will this square with the notions of the Courier, in the case above supposed? The writer, whom we have supposed to exist at a moment when an absolute despotism is about to be begun, publishes his sentiments respecting the minister who is at the bottom of the scheme. This must necessarily highly provoke such minister, and, according to the maxims now received, must as necessarily tend to a breach of the peace. Consequently, the writer goes to jail, and there end the powers of the press in protecting freedom. This doctrine of libels is, to be sure, the most whimsical thing that ever was heard of in the whole world. The reason for punishing libels criminally, is, that they tend to a breach of the peace; so, the prosecutor comes and puts you in jail, lest he himself should be provoked to break the peace by beating you, or shooting at you! If your libel be upon the ministers, supposing you to speak the truth; that is to say, if you find just fault with the servants of the public, you are liable, according to this doctrine, to be put in jail, or to have your ears cropped off, for having, by truly stating their faults to those whom you help to pay, provoked them to commit a breach of the peace upon your body! Good lord! is this the sort of liberty of the press, which JUNIUS, whom every body but me reads, calls the "Palladium of free-men"? Is this the thing, which the Courier relies upon for the maintenance of freedom? Is it this, to prevent any encroachment" upon which he so earnestly calls upon us?

-The plain truth is, that, except in matters of little public importance, we dare not plainly state in print, any truth that is unpalatable. There is ONE SUBJECT, which, at this moment, engages the attention of every man, who is conversant in public affairs, or, in the slightest degree, accustomed to turn his thoughts that way. Amongst all men of all parties there is but one opinion apon this subject. The nation has an unanimous wish; and feels the greatest alarm, lest that wish should be set at nought. nought. Almost every public print in the country has, after the Eastern manner, hinted its feelings and supplications, by way

of supposition, or by way of fable; but, there is no one that has dared to say what it thinks, though its thoughts are those of fourteen millions of people; and, what is more, there will not be one of these prints that will dare to ascribe the calamities and disgrace, which will inevitably follow the contempt of this national prayer, to the right cause; but, every one will again have recourse to hints and allusions and fables, or, not being bold enough for that, will hold its peace.- Reader, is not this the real state of the press?--I hold to my opinion, that nothing ought to be deemed libellous which is not false as well as malicious. If a man be a coward or a fool, he ought to be known for such. If he be an adulterer or a rogue, why should he not be called an adulterer, or a rogue? Why should not men be known for what they are? If the person described be an obscure individual, why, the exposure of him will reach but a small distance; and, if he be in a public capacity, the exposure ought to reach far and wide. Only make the publisher prove the truth of all his censorious words, and, I'll warrant that he takes care what he states. But, while truth as well as falsehood may be punished as a libel, writers will naturally endeavour, by insinuations, to obtain vengeance for the restrictions, under which they labour, and which are a continual thern in their side. "I refrained from speaking even good

[ocr errors]

words, though it was pain and grief to "me." We all wish to speak our minds It is the great mark of distinction between slaves and freemen, that the latter dare utter their sentiments, when the former dare not. SPANISH REVOLUTION. -We have, I perceive, got on our side ALI MAHOMET, who, "to show that he knows ali," calls the French dogs, encourages the Spaniards to cut their thro'ts, and to make them squeak like pigs under the hands of the butcher. What rare company we are got into at last! Well may it be said, that misery brings a man acquainted with strange bed fellows. W. are fighting for liberty aided by the pious prayers of Ali Mahomet. I have often sa d, that Sir Balam, in order to keep off Buon pané, would, if bard pushed, make a league with the devil; and, really, there seems to be but one more step to take. The Courier calls Aur's a very

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

spirited proclamation!" What a shame, to conter words of approbation upon any thing so bloody and impious!--I am greatly afraid, that this reflecting rage against Napoleon is deceiving us all this while The news froug There is a f

nes, to be good.

g constave.

[ocr errors]

shall have no hope from a short contest. In that case, the Bourbons would merely triumph over the Buonapartés, which would be of no service whatever to us, or to any part of the world. Joseph Buonaparte and the Grandees have, it seems, gotten to Madrid without the least interruption, and, I must say, that I look upon that as an unfavourable symptom; for, in the first place, he would not have gone without a considerable army, if the country had been in a state of general insurrection; and, in the next place, it was of vast importance to the patriots to intercept his march. If you look at the map, you will perceive, that, with a mere military escort, he has gone from the frontiers to the centre of Spain. This could not have been, if the accounts we sometime ago received had been true. If there had been, as was stated, 100,000 men in arms in Arragon, is it probable, that the new king, under an escort, would have quietly passed along the skirts of that province? No; and his reception upon the road as well as at Madrid, clearly shows, I think, that, besides the rascally nobility, he has a very powerful party in the kingdom, and which party, if the contest be between him and the old rotten despotism, will, in my opinion, daily increase.

Botley, August 5, 1908.

LETTER FROM SIR RICHARD PHILLIPS, RELATIVE TO THE CAUSE, CARR versus HOOD.

Sir;-The licentiousness of the tongue at the Bar, is so justly appreciated by the sen sible part of the public, that it ought not të excite any other emotion than contempt. in him who at any time is the object of it. If n consequence of a sigual instance of that licentiousness during a late Trial, I am in duced to take up my pen, I am actuated solely by a respect for your numerous intelligent readers, to whom you have favoured me with the honour of an introduction.

You must be too well acquainted with the artifices practised by anonymous writers, to be surprized at learning, that the report of the late Trial between Carr and Hood, copied from a Newspaper into your last Register, was written by the very person whose pamphlet had been the object of that Trial! Hence you may readily account for the inconsistencies of which the Plaintiff and his Witnesses are by this reporter made guilty!

The words of every idle question of the Attorney General, are in this report gravely ascribed to me as the words of my Answers, and I am thus absurdly made to condemn all anonymous publication; vaunt my own

* The absurdity of this statement is ap

virtues; praise the purity of my own Books; and say other childish things which I neither said nor thought, and which in justice I beg leave to refer back to their real author! Indeed, the learning of the Bar on this occasion, shone RESPLENDENTLY, and we had perpetual references made to high sounding works which never existed, such as Milton's answer to Sir Robert Filmer, Aristotle's an swer to the works of Socrates, aud Sir Isaac Newton's Controversy with Descartes!

Besides making the preceding general explanation, I have to remark on one point of your own observations. You have obviously confounded two very different works, when you characterize as FALSE and SCANDALOUS a Publication of mine (many years out of print) entitled "Anecdotes of the Founders

of the French Republic." This book was pablished in 1797, and consisted of a grave, chronological account of the persons concerned in the then recent events in France. Its alledged faults, were that of praising many persons, who, it since appears, were unworthy of praise, and of omitting to abuse others who were then obnoxious in this country. You, with others, have obviously confounded this work with one of very different character on the same subject, published within these two or three years by other booksellers, written by Stewarton, a French emigrant, and called the Revolutionary Plutarch. This work was unquestionably a grace to the press and character of the Cantry, and it deserves the epithets with which you have inadvertently branded mine.

I am not disposed to enter the lists with you as a controversialist, but with respect to THE LIBERTY OF THE PRESS, I am persuaded we shall not ultimately disagree. I am a friend to criticism, and to the unrestrained publication of it, but I do not annex the same degree of authority to the writings of every man who sets up for a Critic. He who avows his criticisms, and who is consequently known to be, in other respects, a man of integrity and learning, obtains with me a very different degree of credit from an anonymous trader in criticism who writes in a Periodical Review, at a given price by the sheet! Still, I do not object to the free publication even of such criticisms, manu

parent; every bookseller is constantly in the practice of publishing unexceptionable anonymous works; but there is a wide difference between anonymous invective, or abuse directed against an author or his writings which CALLS FOR RESPONSIBILITY, and an anonymous statement of scientific or histori

cal facts, or an anonymous discussion of abstract principles.

[ocr errors]

factured as they generally are under e direction of some interested Publisher; but I must be allowed not to surrender my judgment of literary productions to critics, who come before me in so questionable a shape. He would truly be " the greatest fool that ever trod the earth," who should submit his opinions to such influence. * Availing themselves of their concealment, it is well known to those who have been behind the scenes during the getting up of an anonymous review, that books are commonly reviewed by authors themselves-by rival authors in the same branch of literature-by the personal enemy of an author-or by the most corrupt and ignorant scribblers. t

Attaching therefore no credit to such writings, is it to be wondered, that I do not waste my time in reading reviews?

And convinced as I am, that the abuse of the critical art, arising out of the concealment of the critics, has discouraged and blighted the genius of the country, baffled the cause of truth and obstructed the progress of science, is it to be wondered that when questioned on this subject, I entered

These words and the alternative, that I had "slipped in my testimony," were extravagantly applied to me by the AttorneyGeneral, for declaring that I did not read, and did not respect the opinions of an anonymous reviewer, and consequently was not influenced in my negociations with an author, by the character of his works given in the reviews. I have no doubt that publishers in general entertain an equal con tempt of anonymous opinions of books, and I conceive there exists little difference of opinion on the subject, among the intelligent part of the public-Every man of letters, and every person acquainted with the details of literature, will thank me for thus exposing a craft, the practices of which are as disgraceful and as pernicious as those of advertising money lenders. The craft may furiously assail ine in return, but the cause

I advocate, is THE CAUSE OF TRUTH, SCIENCE, AND LITERATURE!

†This is not a personal question, and therefore it is of no consequence to its merits that I was myself concerned for about fourteen months, as a proprietor of the Ostord Keview. Nothing however is conceded by the admission, because the Oxford Review was EXPRESSLY and AVOWEDLY in terms set up as AN EXPERIMENT, to try whether a review on totally opposite principles to those then in existence would succeed; and it failed, owing to its want of that severity of personal attack which it appears is a principal re commendation of anonymous criticism.

my protest against so mischievous an usurpation, in matters of taste and literature?

In justice to the respectable character and honourable views of SIR JOHN CARR, I feel it incumbent on me to explain, that he did not found his late action on the pretended criticisms in the pamphlet of which he complained, but SOLELY and EXCLUSIVELY on the caricatures which had been introduced into it, and which it must be universally allowed are NOVEL and NOT VERY LEGITIMATE AUXILIARIES of GENUINE CRITICISM. I am, Sir, yours, &c.

R. PHILLIPS.

Bridge Street, Aug. 4, 1808.

LIBEL LAWS.

SIR,-In reading your remarks upon the late trial of the action of sir John Carr against Hood and Sharpe, booksellers in the Poultry, for publishing a book under the title of My Pocket-book," which is charged to be a libel upon the plaintiff'sir John Cair, by which his pecuniary interest, as a writer and seller of books to booksellers, is in jured, and he is therefore intitled to a compensation from the defendants for the damage he has thereby sustained, you appear to me not to have been apprized of the distinction made in our courts of justice between those civil actions for libels in which the plaintiff seeks for a compensation for the injury or damage he has received from the libel, and the criminal proceedings in the court of King's Bench, or some other court of criminal judicature, carried on in the king's name either by an indictment of a grand jury, or by an information in the court of King's-Bench by the attorney-general, or by the master of the crown-office, (who is alsocalled the clerk of the crown in the King'sBench,) after a permission given him by the judges of the court to file, or enter, such information against the supposed libeller. In the proceeding by civil action the defendant is allowed to bring proof of the facts stated against the plaintiff in the libel; and, if he proves to the satisfaction of the jury that those facts are true, the jury ought to give their verdict for the defendant: and it is only in the criminal mode of proceeding that the defendant is not allowed to bring proof of the facts contained in the supposed libel, and that lord Mansfield declared, or is reported to have declared, "that the

[ocr errors]

greater the truth of the libel, the greater "is the libel." And the ground of this opinion of his lordship was not "that the meatal uneasiness felt by an innocent man upon reading a false charge made against him in a libel was greater than the uneasiness

felt by a guilty man upon reading a true charge made against him in a libel, or, -rather, in a printed paper," but "that it was more likely to produce a breach of the peace;" the tendency to which mischievous consequence, is the whole and only foundation of the jurisdiction of the court of King's-Bench to take cognizance of any published writing, whether true or false; it being the constant and indispensable conclusion of every indictment and information in the court of King's Bench and in all other criminal courts, that the action charged to be done by the accused party is against the peace of our sovereign lord the king, his crown and dignity. And lord Mansfield thought that an innocent man was more likely to revenge, by a duel or some other act of violence, a false charge made against him in a published paper than a man who was conscious that the charge was true, and would therefore become only more known to the public, and consequently more detrimental to his interest and reputation, by any attempts be should make to resent the publication of it. However, I believe you are warranted in asserting that even in indictments and informations for libels it was formerly the practice to alledge that the libels were false, as well as scandalous and malicious and I have been informed that the first attorney-general who ventured to leave out the word false in an information for a libel was the late sir Fletcher Norton, about the year 1761. But, whether his successors in that office have followed his example and omitted the word false in the informations for libels which they have thought fit to bring, or not, I do not know: but it may, perhaps, be worth while to inquire. I must own that I wish they may not have followed his example, but may have again inserted the word false in their informations, and even that it may be declared, either by a solemn decision of the court of King's-bench, or by an act of parliament, to be necessary so to do, to make the information, or indictment valid. For I agree with you in thinking" that falsehood formerly was, and still ought to be, essential as the groundwork of the charge."

will further observe that, when the word false was inserted in these informations, it was the usual practice of judges to refuse to permit the defendents to bring evidence to prove the truth of the facts alledged in the supposed libels, because they said the published paper might be a libel, or punishable publication, even if the facts contained in it should be true. But this reasoning of the judges does not ap、

« PreviousContinue »