seems, object very strongly to be deprived of one of our blessings: namely, the blessing of tythes! Two, i'faith! Two bless ings; for his Lordship takes in tares as well as tythes The dulness of the woolmarket " may," he says, " in great part, "be attributed to our own bad policy, the "neglect of encouraging tillage, the suf fering it to labour under great expences, "permitting the grain of other countries "comparatively untaxed, and untythed, to "enter our ports." This was the most home stroke at "social order” that I have witnessed for a long time; it was no battling at the elbows and cheek-bones; it was what the boxers call a body-blow. It conveyed volumes into the open ears of the audience, not a man of whom (unless he was a lay impropriator) did not anxiously wish to get rid of tythes; not a man of whom did not know that France was meant principally by the untythed country; not a man of them did not know, that tythes were gotten rid of in France by the overthrow of the old government. They all well knew, indeed, that the tythes were done away by the republicans of France; that they were abolished by the very men against whose principles this country, in the year 1793, entered upon the dreadful war which is still going on; that they were abolished by Brissot and Paine and Guadet and Pethion and Vergniaud and Roland and the rest of that band, who have been represented as the worst enemies of order and law and especially of royalty; that, in short, the tythes were abolished in France by the sworn enemies of kingly government. The

I have dwelt the longer upon this instance as it affords a case exactly in point with all those which have lately been the subject of so much discussion. To tell the people of England, and particularly to tell the cultivators of the land, when accounting to them for the dull sale of their produce, that one of the causes of the calamity is, that the government permits produce to be imported from countries (necessarily alluding to the French territories) comparatively untaxed, and untythed; what is this but to tell them, 1st, that the government occasions the calamity; and next, that the cause of those other countries being able to send grain into this cheaper than our own grain, is, that the lands in those countries are untythed, and that, when compared with us, the people are untaxed? Well, and what then? Had not Lord Sheffield a right to tell the Sussex farmers this? To be sure he had; but he had no greater right to tell it them than Mr. White had to tell the soldiers that they were not so well off as the soldiers of France. Whether either or neither spoke the truth is of no consequence in the argument; for, Mr. White's offence would, in the eye of our libel law, have been not the less if he had been able to prove the truth of every word that he had published. We shall suppose both Lord Sheffield and Mr. White to speak their real sentiments; and then, I think, no man will hesitate to say, that the publication of the one was full as justifiable as the speech of the other.

I have before spoken of the ill-look that this jealousy has; this uncommon anxiety hearers of Lord Sheffield would not fail to keep out of print all these contrasts beto bear this in mind; this they would re- tween the situation of the French and member perfectly well; but one thing English soldiers; and, indeed, every comthey might possibly have been uninform-parison, wherein the state of the two naed of; they might not have been informed, that Napoleon, in restoring the monarchy, had not restored the tythes; they might not have been informed of this; they might have supposed, that, as the kingly name and authority had returned; they might have supposed, that, as there were Bishops and Priests again in France, the tythes must have been restored: this they might have thought, and would, of course, have concluded, that the farmers of France had, after all, gained nothing by the revolution; but Lord Sheffield did not seem disposed to leave them in this error; his lordship did justice to the government of Napoleon. Whether he was well aware of what he was doing is more than I can say.

tions is spoken of in terms advantageous to France. This anxiety has an ugly look. It argues, that there is not a stout feeling within. It argues a fear on the part of the prosecutors, that somebody or other will believe what is said by the alledged libeller; that somebody or other will really think, that the French soldiers are better off than the English soldiers, and that the people of France, after all that has been said, are better off than the people of England.

The contrary is, indeed, constantly and loudly asserted by the prosecutors and their advocates, who say, that the army and the people have TOO MUCH SENSE to be thus misled; that they are too thinking

and too loyal to be led astray by any such | any particular notice from the Ex Officio efforts; and, indeed, that they most prosecutor. But, it is the French! Oh, the heartily despise the contemptible incen- French! There is the gall and vinegar! diaries, by whom those efforts are made. There is the gravel to the teeth; there is Well, now, if this were really the case, the blast to the eyes! It is the French ! or if such were the opinion of the prose- We must say nothing good, it would seem, cutors, why not save themselves the of the situation of France, or of any thing trouble of prosecuting? Why prosecute belonging to her. We must believe that men for publishing what you declare to her people are not only poor but starving, be harmless in effect? Why take the pains though they send us victuals in exchange to prosecute those, whom no man thinks for the remnant of our gold; and we must of consequence enough to hate, and whom believe that her soldiers are good for little, he can only find in his heart to despise? though they have conquered the continent The object of prosecution is said to be, to of Europe having us for enemies during prevent others from offending in the like the whole of the time. manner. But, of what use is this, if the offence not only has done no harm, but can do no harm? If the soldiers and the people, the parties to be seduced, have been proof against the attempts at seducing them, and if they have been so, not from accident, not from any particular circumstance, but from character and mind and feeling; if this be the case, why prosecute? It is, in this case, prosecuting under colour of preventing what is impossible to take place. If a man were to publish an address to the dogs in England, telling them that they were ill-used, and that Napoleon's dogs were used much better. Would you prosecute for this? No. And why? Because, whether true or false, it could produce no evil effect. The dogs would not be instigated to break out against their masters by such a publication, because they would not understand what was addressed to them. Precisely so! And why prosecute, then, a man who has written that, which from the very character of the parties intenced to be seduced, must be despised by those parties? Why prosecute for that which you know must nthessarily fall dead from the press? But, is there not, at bottom, a little affectation in these boasts about the contempt which the army and the people bestow upon the alledged libellers, who draw contrasts between the French and English soldiers? Is there not a little affectation at bottom? And will the reader believe, that contrasts, in which the soldiers of other countries than France should be put before those of England, would be watched with equal jea lousy? Does the reader believe, for instance, that there would be any great dan ger in a writer's preferring the situation of an American soldier to that of an English soldier? Any writer might, I fancy, sing the praises of the situation of the Turkish or Russian or Prussian or Austrian or Algerine soldier long enough without attracting

Reader; English reader, how are things. changed of late years! What wonders have been worked by this French revolution! When was it before known, heard of, or dreamt of, that offence was likely to be taken at a comparison drawn between any thing French and any thing English? Look back, and consider how strange it would have appeared for the English government to apprehend danger from any such comparison. Look at Hogarth's story of the Gates of Calais. Look at his contrast between England and France. Surely we are not the same nations that we formerly were! What! and do our rulers really fear the effect of contrasts drawn between our situation and that of the nation of frog-euters? Look at the French soldiers in the above-mentioned contrast of Hogarth ruffles without a shirt; bones sallying out through the skin; soup without meat; the sword used as a spit for frogs; the bayonet pointed at the backs of the soldiers to make them face the enemy. Such were the pictures, which we formerly drew of the soldiers of France. And, is it of contrasts between English and French soldiers that our rulers are now afraid? Is there, can there be, any ground for such fears? And, if there be no ground for such fears, where is the policy of prosecutions founded upon the supposed danger of such contrasts ? Perhaps, in the whole of the symptoms of the times; there is not a worse than this; that the English Prosecutor should lay such mighty stress upon the evil tendency of comparisons drawn between the situation of the English soldier and that of the French soldier; that he should arraign men at the bar for drawing such comparisons; that the act should be considered as one deeply affecting the safety of the nation; an act which, formerly, would have attracted no more attention than a comparison of French against English.

horses or cows. It is manifest, that there has been a great change in the relative situation of the two countries as to character, or, that these alarms are totally groundless; and, if such change has taken place, and to the advantage of France, the change must be ascribed to her revolution. To profit from whatever she has discovered of good, shunning carefully all that has proved injurious to her, would be the wisest course that our government could pursue, and would be attended with much better consequences than any endeavours to suppress the knowledge of those benefits which she has derived either from her revolution or from the laws and regulations of her present ruler.

My Article is much longer; but I am compelled to leave off here, and reserve the remainder for my next Number, because I could not divide the proceedings on the Trial again. The following very sensible letter, I could not delay inserting. WM. COBBETT.

State Prison, Newgate, Friday, 15th November, 1811.

ON MR. WHITE'S TRIAL.

"is the very essence and vitality of the "Liberty of the Press-its very mean"ing and explanation-its form and pres

sure-its principal object and preroga"tive. And this truth ought to be written "in letters of gold, on the heart of every "Englishman-that the Liberty to write "TRUTH against the Government, is for the "BENEFIT of the PEOPLE. But, it is said, it "will bring the Government into dises"teem so it should, my Lord-that is its "great use and intention, its highest and "noblest praise. Injustice, Oppression, "Corruption, Bigotry, Fraud, Deceit, and

46

Peculation, ought ever to be held in "disesteem, in abhorrence by a virtuous "People. To expose continually, and "without ceremony, the vices and errors "of Government, to stamp its measures "with a true character, and by exposing, "to tend to remove the grievances, are "the grand uses and blessings of the Liberty of the Press. Now, I beg leave "to turn my attention to the Attorney "General. In the first place; falschood "written against Government, is injustice to "the Government and to the People. Mr. Attorney General will doubtlessly keep a keen eye upon this.-In the second place; what shall we say of Falsehood "written in favor of Government—I assert "it is an infamous libel-a libel equally upon the Government and the People-it is extremely injurious to both. It brings the Government, as well as the "whole nation, into utter contempt and "derision-it deceives the People, and. "will ultimately destroy their confidence "in the government, as well as their integrity. It would require a volume to "trace its evil effects thro' all their wind"ings and concatenations. And should "Truth be shut up in a dungeon, while

"Mr. Cobbett'; I shall leave it to your judgment, to insert in your Register or "not, the following remarks on the Liberty of the Press. The result of the "trial of Mr. White, is pleasing to every humane man, patriot, and sincere friend "to the Liberty of the Press. In the love "of truth, I beg leave to attract Lord "Ellenborough's serious attention, to the subsequent concise observations, the “multum in parvo, to use a little Latin, Mr. "Cobbett, for once in a way.-Every man, my Lord, who writes at all respecting "Governments, must write, either for, or against Government, and what he writes" Falsehood, and Impudence, and Fraud, "must be either truth or falsehood.

66

"In the first place,-Truth written for, "or in favor of Government, will not be "considered as libellous,-it is due to the "Government, and to the People. There is no danger that the Attorney General "will prosecute it.-But in the second place, what shall we say of Truth written "against Government it has been said, "my Lord, that it is libellous-that it brings the Government into disesteem,"that it is of injurious tendency,-to "whom, my Lord? to those, against whom "it is directed, the Governors; 'ay, "there's the rub:' but to whom is it beneficial? I answer, to the People. This

66

"and Oppression, stalk thro' the palace, "as well as thro' our streets, and towns, "and villages, with impunity? Then "adieu, Dear and Noble Liberty! the

paragon of this world! for whom our an"cestors poured out their generous blood; "and farewell, the greatness and happi"ness of England! Thus I think I have "fully, yet concisely treated this im"portant subject-and shown that the

Liberty of the Press, is the Liberty to "write Truth against the Government, for "the benefit of the People. Your, &c. "G. G. FORDHAM.-Nov. 6, 1811. Roy"şton, Herts."

Recorded Verdict for your precept and imitation!

Indeed, if the object of Mr. Fox's Act was not to bring the moral guilt of the Defendant, in the cases of Libel, within the purview of the Jury, the act itself was superfluous and nugatory.

be not made manifest.-By this Act, Gentlemen, you are impowered and bound to pronounce upon the whole matter in issue which includes both the legal and moral guilt; and you are called upon by every principle of duty and honour to ACQUIT where the MORAL guilt be not undeniably established-Gentlemen, I appeal to facts that this is the true construction of the Act, which was most clearly defined in the case of Mr. John Reeves, which, occurred soon after its passing, and while several of the Legislators, who were instrumental in its adoption, were on the Bench and at the bar. In this case, the matter was held to be culpable, yet he was clear-criminal Cases; and consequently that the ed of a culpable Intention criminal intention (whatever be the nature of the Publication) must be made manifest, or conviction cannot follow.

68

66

But it not only does this, but also explains or declares, what might before bave been doubtful, the nature of a Libel ;—and if the Judge is to treat the matter in his charge to the Jury as in other criminal cases, WHICH THIS ACT ENJOINS HIM to do, the Defendant is unquestionably entitled to the same PROTECTION as afforded in other

It has, I know, been held, and may still be held, that the Declaration of a Criminal Intention, as specified in the Record, is a mere matter of form,-that they are phrases of Law,-mere words of course, and out of the consideration of the Jury: —that is, that the Jury is to confine itself to judging of the Fact, which probably requires little judgment at all, and the Court alone is to be left to decide on the Intention.

We find that Lord Mansfield laid it down so to the Jury, upon the trial of Mr. Miller, for publishing Junius's Letter to the King -He said, "that the words scandalous, seditious, &c. were inferences of law, and were not under the cognizance of the Jury!"-But the Jury thought otherwise,; and, judging of the Intention as well as the Act, returned a Verdict"Not Guilty."

the Foreman of the Jury upon that occasion pronounced these remarkable word :-" My "Lord, the Jury are of opinion, that the Pamphlet, which has been PROVED to have “ been WRITTEN by John Reeves, Esq. "is a very improper Publication :-bui, being of opinion that the Defendant was "not actuated by the criminal motive imputed to him in the Information, find "him NOT GUILTY!"-And, Gentlemen, should you even be of opinion that the matter alledged in this prosecution is of the nature of Mr. Reeves's Book; yet still, unless you are equally convinced that it was given to the world with the intentions ascribed to it, the Author of this Publication must be equally Not Guilty: the Analogy is complete. If the Jury in Mr. Reeves's Case, though they condemned the matter, believed not the imputed Criminal Intention, though Reeves himself was the Author; much less can you, Gentlemen, impute a Criminal Intention to ME, after all which I have offered, after all which you must have ascertained, after the conviction you must have drawn that I was totally ignorant of the Publication in question. Gentlemen, it would at once be an insult to your uning be found a Libel, they are merely inderstanding and your justice, to suppose it possible that you can ascribe a Criminal Intention to me, with respect to a thing I never saw, nor could have seen till after its publication,-while you perceive, that a Jury, who could not make their minds satisfied that the WRITER HIMSELF had the Criminal Intention, imputed to him, would not suffer his conviction. I had not, COULD not have, the Intention imputed to me; and of this, I doubt not, you are clearly convinced.

Here, theu, Gentlemen, is a direct and absolute precedent, a plain and positive example for your guide and authority,-a

Upon the Trial of Mr. Baldwin, for publishing the same Letter, Lord Mansfield again said,-"The epithets false, scandalous, and malicious, are, AT PRESENT, all words of course :—if the write

ferences of Law!"-The Jury, however, who rightly considered, that a man should be charged with nothing more than was needful to his case, that Fuct, not Inference, was to constitute the Criminal Intention and direct their Verdict,-and believing no Criminal Intention to be justly ascribable to the Publisher,-unanimously pronounced him Not Guilty.

Upon the memorable trial of Mr. Owen, in 1752, for printing and publishing a Libel against Alexander Murray, Esq. Mr. Pratt, (afterwards Lord Camden,) in his argument for the Defendant, has the following words:"If there is an In