Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

VOL. XIX. No. 19.] LONDON, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 6, 1811.

545]

SUMMARY OF POLITICS.

LIBERTY OF THE PRESS.- -The present article will conclude the Series, which I intended to write upon this subject.The foriner articles will be found at pages 427, 449, 481, and 453.-The two last contain remarks upon the particular case of Messrs. HUNT. The two first relate to the Liberty of the Press generally, to which subject I now return. At the close of the article, which began at page 449, I described the Liberty of the Press; I gave the reader my notion of what it really was; and I had before shewn what it was not.But, in a sort of supplement to that article, Linsert, in the present Number, a Letter to Lord Ellenborough, which I published two years ago, and which contains, as the reader will see, my reasons, more at large, upon this branch of the subject. It is there shown, even upon the principles laid down by this judge himself, in the case of Carr against Hood and Sharpe, that the Liberty of the Press, if it have any real existence, must mean the right of publishing, without risk to one's self, a true account of the character, actions, and measures of all men employed in managing the affairs of the nation.This letter appears to me to embrace all the reasoning that can be offered upon the part of the subject to which it relates. No one has ever attempted to answer it; and my conviction is, that it is wholly unanswerable.To that letter I have little to add; and should add nothing, did it not appear to me necessary to offer some remarks applicable to the opening of MR. BROUGHAM's defence of Messrs. HUNT, in which that gentleman is, in the report, stated to have uttered a strong and sweeping censure upon the present licentiousness of the press. (See p. 507.)--This may not have been reported with perfect correct ness; but, it is not likely, that it should be wholly unfounded. Indeed, that is almost impossible; but, at any rate, the speech is in print, it is gone forth to the public, and, therefore, whether the words really came from him or not, the observations deserve an answer. -He says, that "the licentiousness of the press has

[Price 18.

[546

"reached a height, which it certainly has "not attained at any former period in this "country, a licentiousness whereby every

boundary is removed, and every obsta"cle overwhelmed."Now, admitting this to be true, Mr. Brougham must excuse me, if I look upon it as the worst possible opening to a defence of the sort that he had to make. It was calculated to prepossess the minds of the jury against the press in general; it was calculated to give a broad and general sanction to the proceedings of the Attorney General, who failed not to avail himself of that sanction; and, it certainly was calculated to give the minds of the jury a bias against the defendants as belonging to a class generally licentious.It may be said, that by his subsequent explanations, he discriminated between his clients and the licentious parts of the printers; but, if he once put them into the class; if he once succeeded in persuading the jury, that the press was generally thus monstrously licentious, he might well be expected to fail in establishing an exception in favour of his clients, and of the soundness of which exception he had no proof to produce. If he once suc ceeded, as his words clearly meant, in persuading the jury, that, at this particular time, licentiousness was got to such a monstrous height; that it was now arrived at a pitch higher than at any former period; that it had passed all bounds, and was overwhelming every thing; if he once succeeded in persuading them, that this was generally the case, was it likely that his after expla nations would get this impression out of their minds? No: and, it is my firm con viction, as it is, I believe, that of the pub. lic, that if the jury did not suffer their minds to be worked up to a verdict of guilty, the defendants had to thank the jury themselves much more than their advocate.

-Supposing, therefore, the fact to have been true, it would, in Mr. BROUGHAM'S situation, have been injudicious to state it.

-But, it was not true; it was the reverse of the truth; for, an appeal to the publications of the day will prove, that the press never was less licentious; never was more tume; and, that it is impossible for it U

to become more tame, to possess less spirit and the STAR-CHAMBER downwards; if he and boldness, to be a more insipid and must have this, he should have gone into a cowardly thing than it is, unless it were very full and clear explanation of his subjected to a previous licencer. Let any meaning, and not have suffered any part man look back through the last century; of his accusation to lie upon the press in gelet him view the publications in the reign neral.This word licentiousness is a very of QUEEN ANNE, which was called the convenient word. It is a word that allows Augustan Age of English literature, and then of twisting and stretching. It may be apsay, whether we now possess as much of the plied to any thing. It will always afford liberty of the press as was possessed then. a dispute as to its application. Therefore it Let him only look at the writings of is, that it is such a favourite with lawyers: SWIFT and POPE and GAY, and consider There is, they tell us, a boundary what would have been the sentences which mark between the liberty and the licentiousthey would have received, had they ness of the press. But, do they enable us written now. There was a man prose- to see this mark? Have they ever pointed cuted, some few years ago, for a story it out? No, and they take special care not about a dunghill Cock; what would GAY to do it. The natural boundary is truth. have said, if he had been prosecuted for This is a boundary that we all know well. his "Ant in Office." Talk of licentiousness, We all know how to distinguish between indeed! Look at Swift's Legion Club, and truth and falshood; but, as to where liat scores more of his poems; and look at berty ends and licentiousness begins, who his Drapier's Letters. In short, look into is able to determine that? Let all falshoods almost any page of his writings. Look be punished according to the magnitude at Pope's satires, if you talk of licentious of the injury that they do, or are calculated attacks upon private characters and public to do; let the publisher or the writer of characters too. He begins one of them falshood be called a libeller; and let him with saying that the Solicitor of the Trea- be punished if he cannot prove the truth of sury bribes witnesses, in cases of libel, what he writes and publishes.——Is not with "double pots and pay." And, is it, this enough? What can be wanted more while these works are extant, while we for the protection of innocence? More may have these writings in all our houses, while be wanted for the protection of guilt, inwe have these to look back to; is it that deed; but, 'surely, nothing more can be while we have all these before us, that we wanted for the protection of innocence.are to be told, that the press, the poor, And, as to the government, what a thing it tame, cowed-down press of the present is to say, or to act as if you said, that the day is more than ever licentious?That government stands in need of a law to puthere are very base creatures now-a-days, nish men for publishing_truths! What a who live by blackening private characters thing this is to say! To say that the I know as well as any body. I know, that publishing of truths endangers the safety such men deal in all manner of falshoods. of the government, is, it appears to me, I know, that they are the very basest of the strongest censure that human wit could mankind. I know, that as in the proved devise upon that government. What must case of the DAY news-paper, some of the any man of common sense think of a sysproprietors of the public prints are ac- tem of government that cannot withtuated by the basest of motives. But, it stand the publication of truth- respecting should be borne in mind, that the pro- it? What would you think of any private prietors of the DAY news-paper are not person who should be described to you men who follow printing and publish- thus: "he is a man, who will enjoy a ing as a profession; that they are, in fact, "fair reputation in the world, and who men who have engaged in the thing upon "will do very well, until the truth be the avowal of its being an article of trade;" spoken of him; but, the moment the that they have, indeed, proclaimed an hostility to the Daily Press in general; and that the publication, instead of being a fair specimen of the Daily Press, is an instance of its opposite.Mr. BROUGHAM, therefore, if he must have his philippic against the licentiousness of the press, in order to follow the example of almost all other lawyers, from the time of Noy

"truth is spoken of him, he is ruined for "ever?" What would you think of a man thus described to you? Would you choose such a man for a friend? Nay, would you not shun him as you would shun a leper? What then, I again ask, can be more injurious to the character of any government, than to say, that men shall not be permitted to speak and write

Would it not, in such case, be much better that there should be no pleading at all; would not the defendant stand a better chance by merely having the information or indictment put into the hands of the jury and having a hearing of the evidence? And, if these questions be answered in the affirmative, is it not manifest, that a press not free to utter the truth is beyond all comparison worse than no press at all? Such a press is, indeed, calculated to injure the cause of truth and of freedom more than can scarcely be imagined. It is an instrument the most powerful for depriving men of their freedom and their happiness. It is, and it always must be, a curse the most severe that mankind can possibly endure.--To call such a press free, to say that such a press bas liberty, is an insult to common sense; it is an affront to human nature itself. The use of the press, that is to say, the art of print

about it what they can prove to be true? | -Nay; what do we actually say about the government of the Emperor of France? Do we not say, that his restraints upon the press proceed from the fear of the press, and that, too, because his government is bad? Yet, what does he do more, what can he do more, what can he possibly wish to do more, than to prevent the truth from from being published about the badness of his government?--I should like to see this question receive a distinct answer, because this is the pincher. This puts the thing to the test. It is useless to burst out in railing against him; because, what ever he may deserve in that way, it does not alter the state of the question. He may be inspired by the devil, and may be the very devil himself; but, with the press, what can he want to do more than prevent the publication of truth? This is the question. Until it be answered all the railing will, with men of sense, passing, has not been known above 300 years, for nothing; and those who use it, may, as the vulgar saying is, keep their breath to cool their porridge, for not the smallest effect will it produce in their favour.-There is another view of this matter, which, though I have, somewhere, taken it before, I cannot, upon this occasion, refrain from taking again. I allude to the comparison between the state of no press at all and a press not free to publish the truth; and I have no hesitation in saying that the former is greatly to be preferred; because, in that case, the public would judge and act wholly from their own observations and experience, whereas in the latter, the press gives them a false guide, which is always worse than no guide at all.--Suppose the news-paper reporters were prohibited from giving the speeches of those members who opposed the ministers, or were obliged to leave out all the parts of their speeches likely to have weight against the ministers; could such reports do the public any good; nay, must they not do a great deal of mischief; would they not be much worse than no reports at all; and would they not have a natural tendency to destroy every vestige of what we call freedom? Suppose, upon a trial, the advocate for the Crown only was to be at liberty to say what he pleased, and that the defendant's counsel were to speak in a muzzle and be liable to be prosecuted for what he said, and to be fined, jailed, and ruined in health as well as in fortune if he spoke any thing to displease the Crown Lawyers.

I believe. Now, it would be too much
to say, that freedom, that political liberty,
was not known before that time; for it is
very notorious, that men were very free
in Greece, in Rome, in Germany, and in
England too, long before printing was
ever thought of, and much freer in Ger-
many than they ever have been since;
and, as to England, we know well what
noble struggles were made for freedom,
long before the press was thought of,
and how just were the laws.--Men
then judged more from their own observa-
tion and from experience; from what they
themselves saw and what they felt. They
took less upon trust. Knowledge, in cer-
tain respects, was slower, but it was surer.
And, indeed, men were as free as ever
they have been since, if not more so; as
most clearly appears from the whole tenor
of our laws, which, be it observed, as far
as they are most excellent, existed long
before the press was heard of. It is true,
that there are many advantages attending
the press.
It disseminates knowledge
rapidly, and, as truth, if it has a free course,
will always triumph over falshood, the dis-
semination of falshood as well as truth is no
argument against it; but, if it be cramped;
if power is to be exercised to restrain it
on one side and not on the other; if it be
not free as far as truth goes; if it may do
what it pleases, so that it keep clear of the
rich and the powerful, and if, as to them, it
be restrained; if this be the state of it, a
more mischievous, a more hateful, a more
detestable thing never existed in the

world, for it is fraught with mischiefs and oppressions, and insults of every sort, and that, too, under the guise of the fairest gem of freedom. To take a somewhat closer view of the effects of such a press as this, suppose there to exist, in the capacity of a minister of state, a man of the most cruel and cold-blooded stamp, a known corrupter and briber, a doublehanded knave, a wretch endowed with all the qualities fitted to the complete villain, and who would, rather than forego his purpose, flog one half of the nation 'till they cut the throats of the other half. It is shocking to suppose the existence of so execrable a monster; but, suppose such a monster to exist, and suppose him to have become, by some means or other, a minister of state. Would you call the press free if it were not permitted to expose this monster; to put his deeds upon paper; to exhibit him, by name, in his true colours? And, if a part of the press was so base as to attempt to justify him; nay, to praise him; and the other part were not at liberty to answer and expose the falshoods of such attempts; would you still call it free? I think not. I think there cannot be upon earth any man so infamously vile as to pretend that such a press would be worthy of being called free?- -No: unless there be a free course for truth; unless this be the boundary, the press is not free, say of it what you will.

-Such a press as I have been describing is, beyond all comparison, worse than no press at all, and even worse than a press under a licenser; because, in the latter case, it is notorious that there is a licenser; it is matter of notoriety, that the press puts forth only that which is first approved of by the government. This is well known, and the people, knowing this, pay little attention to what is said by the press, if, indeed, they ever see it; and, about seeing it, they will not, of course, be very solicitous. But, in the case of a press such as I have described, the people are deceived. If they see not contradicted the praises of monsters such as the above sup'posed minister, they believe that these praises cannot be contradicted; and thus they may, and naturally will, be induced to give their countenance and support to what is most injurious to them and their country; and thus it is that such a press may assist all the designs of the most fell tyranny that ever country was cursed with. Such are my reasons for believng, that truth and truth alone ought to be

the test of all publications; that, if the writer or publisher can prove the truth of what he says, he ought to be regarded as not guilty of any offence against the law in writing or publishing it; and, if he fail in that proof, he ought (if his writing be injurious to any body, or has a clearly injurious tendency) to be regarded as guilty of an offence against the law. And, as to mere opinions, they never ought to be deemed a crime; for, if unsupported by good reasons, they pass for nothing, they can produce no effect; and, if supported by good reasons, they ought to pass for something, they ought to produce effect, and it is meritorious to publish them.— I now come to the last point, on which it was my intention to speak relative to the liberty of the press, namely, what must naturally be the consequence of all attempts to stifle the liberty of the press; by which I mean, you will observe, the impartial use of the press, the right to publish the truth about every thing and every body, and es pecially about the character and conduct of public men, that is to say, all men in public stations, whether in the state, the legisla ture, the army, the navy, the law, or the church.There is no man living, who has not, at some time or other, experienced the pain arising from being compelled to refrain from speaking the truth. It is what no man easily forgives: "I kept silence," says St. Paul, even from speaking good

words, though it was pain and grief to "me." This is a sort of pain and grief, which the restrained person very seldom fails to remember; and, accordingly we see, that the stifling of the freedom of the press has never succeeded for any length of time in this country. The Stuarts tried it pretty well, and they finally had their reward in their expulsion from the throne. Of all the detestable deeds of Charles the First's Attorney General, Noy, none were so much resented by the people as his persecutions of the press. Ship-money was the invention of this fellow; and though that, through the virtuous resistance of HAMPDEN, became the match that set fire to the pile, the combustible materials consisted in great part of the persecutions of the press, especially in the persons of PRYNN, BASTWICK, and BURTON, who were, by the corrupt and cruel tyrants of the Court of Star Chamber, sentenced to heavy fines, cruel tortures, and imprisonment in distant jails. These men were brought from their distant imprisonment by a vote of the Commons' House of Parliament, and

came to London surrounded by thousands of people, who conducted them from town to town, loaded with kindness, presents, and blessings. And those who had sent them away had the mortification to see them enter London and be conducted along streets literally strewed with flowers, the people bearing branches and garlands in their hands. Such were the people of England in those days; and where is the man of a right mind, who does not, on this account, feel proud at being descended from them?Not long after this, their judges became the objects of punishment; and LAUD, the Archbishop, who had been one of the most inexorable of the Star Chamber gang, was committed to the Tower, on an impeachment by the House of Commons. There he lay for three years, till people, in the heat of the contest with the king, which was then begun, seemed to have forgotten him; but, PRYNN was now become a member of parliament; and, was it any wonder that he did not forget him? LAUD had sentenced him to pay 10,000 pounds in a fine to the king; to have his ears cut off close to his head; to have S. L. (Seditious Libeller) burnt in each cheek; and to be imprisoned for life without pen, ink, or paper, and without any friend ever being suffered to see him; and yet this same tyrant, when he himself was, at last, brought to trial, made a sentimental complaint about the malice and the rudeness of Mr. PRYNN! He was, however, put to death: a sentence much more humane than that which he passed upon Mr. PRYNN and his associates.- - The attempt of the Star Chamber to stifle the liberty of the press not only failed, but it brought destruction upon the heads of those who made it; and, after various struggles, similar attempts drove out the family of Stuart for ever to become exiles in foreign lands, being unworthy to live in this.And what could be more natural? The people, who were right-minded, must necessarily hate them. To murder them by inches for publishing truth was what they could not be expected to bear; and, BURTON, I think it was, told LAUD, upon the trial of the former, to consider well that it might come to his turn to be tried. Nothing short of what Laud received had he to expect from their hands, if ever he fell into them. But, nothing is so blind as mere power. It never looks an inch before its nose; and the greater it is the more short-sighted it is. It never calcalates upon any accidents. Its pride and

It is

insolence only does it listen to. dead to all feelings, either of justice or compassion.To stifle the liberty of the press is next to impossible; and, if it could be done, what would be the consequence? A military despotism, or the subjugation of the country. There is no middle. It must be one or the other of these two; and, if you have not the means of maintaining the former, the latter must come, if an extinguishment of the liberty of the press were to take place.-Napo leon has smothered the liberty of the press; but, then, he has the means of maintaining a military despotism; and, as long as he can maintain that, he will do what he pleases. He is, besides, in no fear or danger from without. He stands in no need of the love and zeal and valour of the mass of the people. He has no occasion to cry " wolf;" for his country is in no danger of an attack from any enemy. But, if he were in danger of an attack from any enemy from without, he must give up his system against the press, or he must yield up the country; for, the people would not be able to see in that. enemy any thing more oppressive than in him; and, when he called upon them to defend their coasts, they would naturally say: "Why? You have taken from us all "our liberty, all the safety to our persons "and our property, the last of which we "hold only in name; you have denied "us even the liberty of complaining of the "treatment we receive; and what more "can the enemy do? Why, then, to the "loss of property and liberty, should we "add the manifest risk of the loss of life ?"

-No description of men, no sect, no party, were ever yet extinguished by persecution; nor was the effect of any doctrine or opinion ever lessened by such means. Even error, glaring absurdity, gains strength by this species of attack. What must, then, be the consequence, if such an attack be made upon truth? There is something in hostility to the best feelings of man to tell him that it is criminal to say the truth. It may be often very malicious to say all that you know to be true of persons in a private station; often very wicked, morally speaking; but, to tell a man that he becomes a criminal, a malefactor, for saying no more than what is true, is what no man of right sentiments can bear with patience.- -Here I conclude this series of articles upon the Liberty of the Press, begging leave to repeat my request, that the reader will go

« ZurückWeiter »