VOL. XIV. No. 6 ]

[PRICE 10D.

193]

SUMMARY OF POLITICS. CRIM. CON.It is not of the sin and shame of the acts of adultery, which are new daily coming before the world through the courts of justice, that I mean to speak upon this occasion. They are the natural consequence of the manners of the times, and those manners as naturally proceed from the size and luxury of the metropolis, which draws together, through the means of taxation, all the wealth and all the vices of the country. It is not, therefore, from any feeling of compassion towards the cuckolds that I am led to offer a few observations upon the subject; for, nine hundred and ninety nine times out of every thousand, the man who is known for a cuckold ought to be one. The law gives him so much power over the poor feeble framed creature whom he has married; he is so completely the master of her and of all she has; he has, if he be worthy of a wife, so decided an influence over her mind, that his cuckoldom appears to me to be almost impossible, unless from his own fault. It is a man's own business to take care of his wife. Judges and juries are not, and never were, intended, to be the guardians of any woman's chastity; and, it is the modern fashion of making them moral censors, which I am desirous of pointing out for public disapprobation.

-A cuckold comes into court and asks

for damages. There are, then, two dry questions of fact before the jury: 1st. whether the act of adultery have been committed; and, 2d, what is the amount of the real damage, which the complainant has sustained from that act. As to the first, circumstantial evidence may certainly be sufficient; but, then, it ought to be as good as is required in cases of treason, or murder. No loose tales about dishevelled hair and rumpled clothes and the like, ought to satisfy any juror. Appearances are so often deceitful, that the very strongest should be viewed with distrust Appearances may satisfy me, that the parties were willing and intended to commit the act; but, unless I am fully satisfied that the act has been committed, I am guilty of falseswearing if I give my assent to a verdict of guilty. According to the new doctrine, however, this

[194

fact of actual commission of the act would seem to be of little consequence; for, the great burden of the pleading against the defendant, is, that he has "seduced the

affections" of the plaintiff's wife, which may be no crime at all, either legal or moral, no man being able to prevent a woman from liking him better than she likes her husband. Only tell a man that he is not bound by his oath; tell him that he is to decide upon opinion and not upon evidence; and you have no longer any hold upon him; all is left to fashion and to chance; or, rather, the plaintiffs in such cases, have for their jurois, a set of men who, from a reason founded in human nature, are decidedly in their favour. It was the old practice, to stick to fact; and, it was necessary to bring good substantial proof of the act being committed, before there was the smallest chance of obtaining a verdict of guilty. Without insisting upon this, what woman's reputation or fortune can be safe? Suppose a scoundrel wishes to get rid of his wife. He may, with the assistance of a brother scoundrel, easily obtain very specious circumstantial proof, that his wife has been guilty of adultery. Nothing is easier either to conceive or to execute. The parties accused of the crime are incapable of being examined in evidence; the wotyan is no party in the cause; and, in the case supposed, she maybe branded as an adulteress and sent to starve, being all the while conscious of perfect innocence. Then, as to the amount of the damages. The word damages seems, of late years, and especially as applicable to this sort of charge, to have quite lost its original legal meaning. The compensation for damage is pecuniary, and, therefore, the pecuniary damage should be made appear; for, is it not a most shameful abuse of words to talk of paying a man for his mental sufferings? And, I should be glad to be informed, by any of the ex perienced cuckolds of the day, what great difference there is between receiving payment for the chastity of a wife, and selling that chastity. When the poisonous transatlantic quack brought an action of damages against me for taking away his reputation, though the perjured jury did not require proof of

G

the falsehood of what I had published, they did ask for proof of the damage sustained by the plaintiff'; or, at least, such proof was given by producing witnesses to shew that his patients had left him. This was a very good thing; it was doing right to withdraw his patients from him; and Dr. Rowley, who wrote upon the subject of the quack's practice, says, I merited a statue of gold for my atchievement.. But, the damage to the quack, the pecuniary damage, was shown; as, in such cases, it certainly ought to be. Now, what damage is sustained by the cuckold? It is possible that there may be some damage sustained, in certain peculiar cases; but, it is the fashion now-a-days, not even to ask for any proof, or to produce any evidence to show, that damage has been sustained, though damages, in case of guilt, always make part of the verdict. If a man, being blind and being assisted by his wife in managing his business, were to lose her through the means of a seducer, it would be easy for him to make his damages appear. But, what damages can be made out by the far greater part of those who apply to the law? They have been robbed of their wives' society and conversation. These they may still enjoy, if they please; for, l'il warrant a wife of this sort Lalks none the worse for her adventure. Aye, but then comes that indefinite thing called comfort, which, if one can, in any case, aflix any meaning to it, means, in this case, the pleasure of being deceived. Still we come back again to the point whence we started : the award is for compensation; for something to make up for what has been lost; and, the cuckold having lost the "comfort" he derived from his wife's society, receives from a court of law the "comfort" which is to be derived from a sum of money.——But, the fact is, that the award has, in general, according to the present practice, nothing at all to do with real damages. It is a sort of fine inflicted; and, in some cases, a late udge openly directed the awarding of exemplary damages; that is to say, the punishing of a man by way of fine, under the form of making compensation to another min for a pretended loss that he has sustained; and the language of the fraternity of learned friends" has been, that the jury are the guardians of the public morals." If a man were indicted for the crime of adultery, then, indeed, the jury would be invested with a character somewhat of this sort; but, no man is, and no man can be, indicted for the crime of adultery. It is a crime of which the courts of law cannot tale compizauce, 7 But, the truth is, that we

66

are a people completely lawyer-ridden; every thing is drawn to their shop; the press and the pulpit, which were formerly looked to as sufficient for the checking of numerous vices, are now, it seems, hardly worth notice; and, the former of the two has, by the lawyers, been so shackled, that it is, indeed, not to be trusted to for any useful purpose. Though you know a man to be a rogue, you are not to call him so, you are not to caution your neighbours against him; because, say the lawyers, "you should bring such a man to justice." That is to say, you should bring him to our shop." But, to bring a rogue to their shop is an expensive affair; and, if the rogue be rich, it is odds but the real punishment fall upon yourself. Into the places where justice is administered, scarcely any but lawyers are permitted to enter. The great Halls of Winchester and Westminster, for instance, which were evidently constructed for the purpose of receiving a large number of persous, that, according to the maxim of our constitution, justice might be administered in public, are now parcelled off. The places where the trials are held are boxed up with mean-looking boards to the very summit of the roof; little passages, or rather holes, are left for people to creep in and out at; a man stands at each entrance to select the persons who wish to enter; and the inside is filled with lawyers, or retainers of the law. From the public the hearing of the trials is as completely kept as if the trials were held in a room locked up. Over the several passage doors, at Winchester, are written, in order to prevent confusion: "Court;" over another, "Counsellors;" over another," Attorneys;" over another, "Witnesses;" over another, " Jury." But, no where do you find a door for the public to enter. Is this administering justice in public? Can this be called an open court? Even the information, which, at last, the public get in print, respecting trials, they are compelled to purchase from lawyers; for it is generally some briefless "learned friend" that supplies the news-papers with the reports of trials. It is the accursed funding and taxing system, which has given rise to such immense volumes of acts of parliament, that has caused so fearful a predominance of this wily and yet daring profession, and that has brought so many persons to pine away their lives in hunger, under a bob-tailed wig and a black gown. Parents, tempted by the brilliant success of comparatively a few, and by the riches which many more acquire, through the means of the law, sead up their sons in swarms to be " brest to the

"bar;" but, could they see the hungry thread-bare troops that cling about Westminster Hall and the Houses of Parliameut, like half-perished flies, in the month of October, about the windows of a seller of sweets, those parents would rather send their children to be bred to the making of shoes. Poor souls! I know of no sight niore painful than to see forty or fifty dozen of them squeezed into a half-circle, with visages clearly indicating want of necessary food, each anxiously looking forward to catch the eye of more fortunate brethren, and having his lungs upon the cock, ready to let off in a laugh the moment a pretence is offered, however miserable that pretence may be. Poor souls! to see them bustling aloug, in the morning, breakfastless to court, as if anxious thousands waited their arrival, and the fate of whole families and classes depended upon their tongues; when, at the same time, both their backs and bellies can witness, that a gypsey fortune-teller surpasses them in the receiving of fees! This multitude of lawyers is a monstrous evil. Than a man really learned in the law no one can in point of rank be more respectable. The profession of the law is not only necessary, but honourable, and ought to be held in honour. It is when this profession draws every thing to itself; when it swallows up every thing; when it confounds and destroy's that which is necessary to public happiness, that it becomes hateful; and to that point it is very fast arriving in England. It is for the Spiritual court, or, which is still better, an unshackled expression of private and public opinion, to check and to punish the crime of adultery, which, in returning to my subject, I repeat it, is not cognizable in a court of law. Sir JAMES MANSFIELD, who, before he was made a judge, had long been considered the most learned lawyer in England, has lately told the jury, that they are not to look upon themselves as being in the capacity of moral censors. This is, I hope, the beginning of a change in the practice, which has, for some time, prevailed; for if "exemplary" damages are given in cases of crim. con. why should not exemplary damages be given in cases of trespass, assault, &c. &c. and, then, what man would be safe? Damage is a specific thing; a thing to be ascertained; and though not to a nicely, in all cases, yet so nearly as to leave but little room for the doing of injustice to either party. The amount of damage done, can, in no case, depend on the rank or means of the party doing it. If a man be knocked down by a shoeblack, the damage is full as great, as

if he had been knocked down by any of the ants' hill of knights about London; and, I should be glad to know, from some thorough-paced cuckold, whether his footman is not as able at the work of depriving him of "comfort," as any of the young lords, whom his wife retains or withdraws from the stews. If the footman deprives Sir Baalam of his comfort, why should not the footman have as heavy damages to pay, as if he had been a lord? Why should he

not? I should like to have an answer to this question. If a footman maliciously kill your horse, worth a thousand pounds, is not an award of a thousand pounds made against him? If, in like manner, a lord. kill your horse, is not the award the same? Damage is a word always bearing the same meaning; and, upon what principle of our law is it, then, that the award in cases of crim. con., is made according to the rank, or pecuniary means, of the defendant? Were I upon a jury, in a case of crim. con, I would eat my boots, soles and all, before I would award to a cuckold one single penny more than I believed him to have lost by the act of the defendant.- -By a contrary practice what a field is opened for the vilest of all robbery! For my part, I can see nothing easier, if a rogue and a handsome and cunning woman are agreed, than to make a very pretty fortune by a crim. con. speculation, and that, too with such evidence as is now received, without the help of the sin of adultery. The jilt has nothing to do but entice a rich man into her trammels; and, without communicating the plot to any one, the husband will soon obtain evidence sufficient for the purpose of obtaining damages to the amount of thousands of pounds. The pair may then live together upon the fruit of their plunder; or, if they like it better, they may separate, and each take a share. The law of this land, which had foreseen every thing else, had foreseen this also; therefore. in speaking of damages, it means real damage, damage that can be proved to have been sustained; and notimaginary damage, damage that exists in the fancy; damage purely mental, and which, therefore, it is impossible to ascertain; because, though the fact be proved, one plantiff will be deeply afflicted at what will be with another a subject of joy. A law, ог a practice, therefore, which tolerates these awards of damages for the loss of "comfort," must necessarily be the most uncertain and capricious of all things. The doctrines we have heard, upon this subject, and the verdicts we have witnessed, cannot fail to have a tendency to render

wavering the conduct of jurors in general; to wear away those notions relative to evinence 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 hued advocates; to expose property, charever, and life, to the effect of circumstones not at all under the controul of the

esson; and, to convert the whole society dependents, into very slaves, of the poressors of the law.

EL LAWS. Before I proceed to neko some further remarks upon this sub, in continuation of what was said last work, 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

Display of Orange Colours."--The paragraph to which it alludes, we never saw, 67 nor do we recollect ever to have seen the paper in which he was published. But it " is not necessary either to have seen the paper or the paragraph to be able to pronounce a most decisive opinion with respect to the transaction in question. It requires the most serious investigation. "What! when Kerry is not a proclaimed district, and martial law consequently does not operate in it, is the subject to be seized "and made prisoner by a military escort?

Supposing even the Kerry editor to have "been guilty of the greatest offence in his paper, still there were civil laws by which he might have been punished, and civil "officers by whom he might have been

"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 weapon, which has assisted so materially "in establishing the freedom of Great "Britain, and which is assisting so power

66

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 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 in finite pains to furnish a before-hand justiti cation for an internal act of oppression which you strongly recommended to the attorneygeneral; namely, the prosecution ofthe author who wrote an essay, published in the Morning Herald, upon the Potsdamoath 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 expla nation 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, and that a justification might be set up on that ground. I thank him for his information respecting Sir Fletcher Norton; but, I be lieve, 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 to 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 tell 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 fulse 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

66

time to ruminate on the blessings of that freedom, which comes from the use of the press.- -To drag in libels amongst breaches of the peace is an ingenious device of lawyers. They tend to a breach of the peace, and are, therefore, criminal," whether they 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 upon this subject. The nation has an unanimous wish; and feels the greatest alarm, lest that wish should be set at nought. Almost every public print in the country has, after the Eastern manner, hinted its feelings and supplications, by way