Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

sion. For every thing that a man is not amenable to a grand jury, he is answerable to no other tribunal than his own conscience, his domestic circle, and his God; and he, who designedly, and with out some imperious and paramount obligation, propagates any information calculated to bring any private character into contempt, to injure his fortunes, or wound his feelings, ought to be punished

as an infamous slanderer.

What I have stated above, may suffice to shew that the crime of libelling one's neighbour has no proper connection with the truth or falsehood of the assertion. He who is libelled might be allowed to prove the falsehood in aggravation; but to attempt to justify a libel on a private person, is an evident aggravation of the original offence, and ought never to be encouraged or countenanced in any court of law, in which the attainment of justice is the primary object.

I consider this distinction between public discussion on public topics, and the malignant slander of private persons, and private character, to be the best security of all that is really useful in a free press. I cannot, therefore, proceed, without exhorting courts of law to protect those who seek legal remedies against private libels, from greater libels, and from misrepresentations far more gross, which appear in the pretended reports of such trials, in our newspapers. He who thinks it worth his while to libel another man, and to oblige him to seek his remedy at law, will not scruple after the trial to obtain the circulation of his own report of the proceedings: hence it is that the most flagrant libels constantly, escape with impunity, their punishment becoming a question of expediency, rather than of justice. That libel which was originally circulated in a corner, and which, if neglected, might possibly have produced no palpable injury, will, if prosecuted, as these things are now conducted, be circulated with emphasis in every newspaper in the kingdom, attended by the witticisms, insinuations, strained inferences, and scandalous assertions, of counsel; so that a man who seeks his redress at law, for that injury to which no man of honour could submit, frequently involves himself in great expence and anxiety, gets perhaps a shilling damages, finds himself at first the laughing-stock of his neighbours, and is finally ruined in his fame and his for tune!

As these considerations may appear to

some persons to compromise that right of free discussion, which is of such vital importance to the civilization, happiness, and improvement, of human nature; it may be necessary for me to remark, that I conceive the occasions to be very few, in which private character has any inherent connection with the investiga tion of valuable truths. Is he a minister who supports an unnecessary war by misleading the public reason, and giving a false direction to the passions of the people; write against that war, and also against wars in general; expose their mischiefs, and prove their inefficiency from reason and experience to effect the objects which they propose? Is he a judge who over-rules juries, and passes cruel and unusual sentences; write against such practices, and shew that... such sentences are contrary to the Bill of Rights?-Is he a general who unmer cifully flogs his soldiers? question the policy and efficacy of flogging soldiers.-Is he a prince addicted to the vice of drunkenness? expose that vice and its consequence to the interests, honour, and health of those who indulge in it.— But in neither of these cases, or in any similar case, is it necessary to vilify the personal and private character of the parties! Every legitimate purpose of the press being to be effected under this li mitation; it involves the probability of rendering the press odious to society, to insist on the right of wantonly exhibiting supposed or alleged defects of private character, thereby arming every cowardly anonymous assassin with the authority pertaining only to a Grand Jury, and enabling him by turns to denounce and put on their defence, every honourable man and virtuous woman in the country.

The press, as a means of attaining truth and information, by the collision of various opinions, is preferable to all others. A people cannot possess a more effectual power of exposing mal-administration than a free press. That king or minister evinces little wisdom, and a small degree of respect for the people, who does not cousult the press as the medium of their complaints, and who does not maintain its freedom, that their complaints may be free, and that he may avail himself of its suggestions. A wise prince will recollect an admirable ar rangement of some Fathers of the Chinese people, who caused a letter-box to be affixed at the Palace gate, into which their subjects were invited to put their Complaints

complaints, and their suggestions for the improvement of the government; and the Chinese emperors considered it a sacred duty to open those boxes themselves, and peruse and attend to their contents. A free press effects the same object, with the advantages to be derived from collision of sentiment. No British Prince ought, therefore, to encou rage restrictions on the press in regard to public objects, unless he at the same instant announce the plan of a Chinese letter-box at the gate of his Palace.

Parliament should be passed, which should subject a public functionary to at least two years imprisonment, and to be cashiered, who should be proved to bave brihed the conductors of any public print, to give a false colour to any act of his administration.

Till some measure of this kind is adopted, the governed and the governors, in regard to the press, are not upon an equal footing. The people may be in sulted every day by mistatements to their prejudice; the patriotic friends of the country may be grossly libelled, while the writers are basking in the sun-shine of power, and reaping a golden barvest as the reward of their prostitution; but should one of the people for his copatriots stand forward to expose in unguarded language the mal administration of a public functionary, he is liable to be made to answer without the intervention of a Grand Jury, and to be subjected to vengeful proceedings from united and condensed power, which eventually crush and destroy him.

The press is so vital and important a machine for the enlargement of knowledge and the removal of abuses, that I consider the misuse of it, for purposes of private slander and personal libel, as little less than SACRILEGE! The ancients would have personified, and under that personification have worshipped THE PRESS for its social power and usefulness; they would therefore have treated as blasphemers, those who made use of it for the gratification of private malice, and would have punished in very dif. ferent degrees a manuscript or oral libel, and a calumny diffused by the instrument called upon to prohibit proceedings mentality of the hallowed press.

So little however are the sacred powersof this deity reverenced by the British people, that it is to be regretted, nearly as much of mischief is perpetrated by venal and sycophant writers, as of benefit from patriotic writers who detect abuses, and advocate the interests of the people. In short, truth is so confounded and so perplexed by the systematic corruption of the press, that I have some times been almost led to entertain the heretical sentiment, that the press itself was pernicious to the public welfare, and an obstruction to the cause of truth and justice! It is well known that pensions are allowed to many editors and writers, by most administrations, for the general support of their measures, and that annual allowances have been made by many of the public offices to news papers, for the purpose of supporting interests of the particular office, and of puffing and praising its conduct.

If a too free use of the press subjects a man to pains and penalties, how much heavier ought punishment to fall on public functionaries, who bribe the press with the public money to impose on the people, or who bribe it even out of their own fortunes to give a false colouring to their mal administration? I earnestly wecommend, therefore, that an Act of

How imperiously then is the Parlia

er officio, and to insist that all libels shall be referred to a Grand Jury! This done, how delicate and how sacred are the functions of that Jury in deciding when the latitude of free discussion and the bounds of decency are exceeded! And again, after these bave decided in the affirmative, how great is the responsibi lity of a Petit Jury, and how nicely ought they to consider the consequences of a conviction on the cause of truth, on their country's welfare, and on the improve ment of man!

In regard to the paradox of Lord MANSFIELD, that the greater the truth the greater the libel, I agree; and at the same time I differ with that great man. In charges of private libels, he was most correct, and justifications ought never to be encouraged; but in regard to a public functionary, on the truth or falsehood of the matter lies the merit or demerit of the publication. An author or publisher who truly proclaims that mal-administra tion which, on investigation, he can prove, deserves a CIVIC CROWN; but, on the other hand, if he turn out to be a base calumniator, he ought to be pu nished with salutary rigour.

Lord Mansfield was not in error when, in regard to private libel or personal slander, he asserted, that the greater the truth the greater the libel. It was a bold

assertion:

assertion: but, besides the reasons already stated, it will appear that if satisfaction cannot be obtained without declaring or charging the falsehood of the assertion, and consequently without proving its falsehood, that one who is libelled is called upon to prove a negative, and to find witnesses to every act of his life, to be able to obtain satisfaction or atonement against an infamous libeller.

One can scarcely suppose any other object in treating so vdious a dilemma in regard to the press, than a wilful design of bringing into disrepute the free exercise of the press in general on laudable and proper objects. It is a dilemma not necessary or essential to any legitimate object of useful discussion. I exhort the friends of free inquiry, therefore, not to become parties in ensnaring the press itself, by supporting doctrines in regard to private libel, which involve and entangle the sacred and unalienable rights of public discussion!

The plain and rational distinction is this-indictments, or actions for libels on private persons, should simply charge, that such and such an injurious assertion was maliciously written and published. In the malice lies the crime, and no malice can be inferred if the assertion itself is not injurious, specially or palpably.

On the other hand, in general discussions relative to general truths and to public objects, whether of men or things, inasmuch as it is useful and meritorious, and a common right to discuss such subjects, so the FALSEHOOD of the assertions ought to constitute a leading and necessary feature of the charge.

COMMON SENSE. Buckingham Gate, June 16, 1811.

To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. SIR,

W

HEN any individual, however obscure his situation in life, makes an attempt toward the public good, it must be successful, more or less, for even if his abilities, or his means be small, he will ever be seconded.

"In the cause of the public no effort can be lost."-Dr. Jebb.

In the general article of our common food-bread, much has frequently been said and written; it is the staff of life." Now a staff means support, and who would on a pedestrian journey go without a sound substantial staff; why then ever omit that main staff-bread, which ought

ever to be made good and wholesome, and rendered as cheap as possible.

Brown, or second bread, is generally used in the country-and why not in Lon don? Because it is frequently so bad, made not in the way it ought to be, but with bad and damaged flour, and in order that it may not be suspected to be such, by its whiteness, pollard and the raspings of dirty and burnt outsides of loaves, run through an iron mill, are mixed with the flour.

Dr. Buchan, whose memory ought to be ever respected, having the great cause of health much at heart, cautioned the world against bad bread, especially for children, and recommended maslin bread. Maslin means a mixture of the flour of wheat and rye; an excellent article, and I was lately glad to see that a baker on the west side of Fleet Market has not only adopted his advice, but has put a large printed paper to explain it in his shop window. I bought some of this bread, and so much do I admire it, that I have advised every family in which I have since visited to get it; many have, and admire it. It appears to be, and the baker assures me it is, made of the best flour of wheat and rye; the bread is fine, has no coarse husks in it, and it keeps moist many days. The virtues of the rye render it peculiarly fit for costive habits; but the very flavour is delicious; and then the price, nine pence per peck less than the standard, renders it an object, but were it sold at the same price I would have it.

I wish that this hint may have the de sired effect, and that the man who has thus brought it forward to, the public, may be so well encouraged as to induce others to adopt it. We shall then have never to hear of alum being found in a baker's house; but if it should, that for such an offence, the old law should be

put in force, of having his ears nailed. to the pillory." PHILANTHROPOS.

March 20, 1811.

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

troduce them without any comment, merely premising that I am not sufficiently acquainted with the juridical history of this sect, to know whether these regulations are of ancient or modern date; and, also, should they be in any ways incorrectly stated, I should consider it a favour to have the errors pointed

out.

1. The quakers are directed by their annual assembly, not to lend their meet ing-houses to the ministers of any other sect, on any occasion whatever and the friends themselves are desired not to borrow the meeting houses of other sectaries, if any other convenient building can be obtained.

2. If any person who has been disowned by the society shall desire to be buried in the quaker's burial ground, it is always granted; but it is strictly for bidden for the corpse of such person to be taken into the meeting-house, as granted in other cases; and if at the ground any minister should attend, and wish to address the assembly, it is not allowed to open the meeting-house to receive the persons assembled, let the weather be ever so unfavourable.

3. It is generally considered improper among the quakers, for any person who wears a cape to his coat, has outside pockets, or a high-crowned hat, to fulfil the office of clerk in any of their meetings for discipline, or speak in such meetings.

4. It is directed by the annual assembly, that no quaker shall publish any book concerning the principles of the friends, without the revision and consent of a meeting of elders, called the morning meeting.

5. It is a law of this society, that no person shall continue a member, who is m the practice of paying tithes, contributary to the church rates, or who, in any manner supports the clergy, or a Lureling ministry; but the friends are strictly admonished to pay all taxes, even war-lazes, faithfully and uprightly..

I. BURROWS. Chapter Coffee-house, May 8, 1811.

To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine.

[blocks in formation]

Your pamphlet will do a great deal of good, and render an important service to truth and science, which has suffered by the trick of some person calling him self Fisher, who has, by his audacity, contrived to palm one of his nostrums on the public, instead of the genuine simple herb.

Persons afflicted, booksellers, and others, ought to be cautioned against the imposition of this Fisher, whose pamphlet about his nostrum, only yes terday, was sent to a friend of mine, who had ordered your pamphlet under the title of " Communications," and whose bookseller gravely contends he has executed his order!

We all know how the introduction of the cow-pox was perplexed by the artifices of quackery, and I humbly conceive it is your duty to put the public on their guard against the new shapes it has assumed on this occasion.*

W. S. WILLIAMS.

Bristol, June 6, 1811.

To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine.

SIR,

HAT war is an evil, which all good

THAT

and considerate persons, whatever their religious persuasions may be, must wish to see abolished, I shall take for granted, for it seems to me utterly impos sible to be otherwise. Some there are, no doubt, who excuse, or endeavour to excuse, most horrid transactions, on the plea of necessity; whilst others, with more christian benevolence, utterly con demn such proceedings.

It appears to me, that if the powerful, at the head of different nations, would seriously turn their thoughts to the subject, that it is not without some probability, that a National Court of Arbitration might be established, to which, when two nations disagree, their cause might be referred, and that the decision of that court would frequently (if not always) be abided by. Do we not see that when a difference exists between two people, respecting some transaction in business, that the cause is referred to private arbitration, and the decision

We know of no means of effectually guarding ignorance against delusion. We did in collecting, with a public object, all the our duty, and we hope no more than our duty, respectable materials and facts relative to Asthma. Our pamphlet is before the public, and we have no doubt will produce the good effects on which we calculated, particularly if every great city contains one partisan of the aeal of Mr. Williams.-EDIT.

abided

1

abided by? Why therefore would it be impossible to form a National Court of Arbitration. I rather compare a court of this sort to an arbitration, than to a Court of Justice; for, in an arbitration, the parties each chuse their friends to be the settlers of the dispute, which is not the case when people go to law, the judge and jury perhaps are all unknown to the parties differing. Each nation might send one or more deputies to the National Court, which should perhaps ineet at different places, as might suit, or have one permanent place of assembling. Although this proposal may to many appear absurd and not likely to produce any good, you will by inserting it in your miscellany much oblige,

AN OCCASIONAL CORRESPONDENT.

April 23d, 1811.

have made enquiry among my acquain tance, and have met with two of them that have undergone that trifling operation, they assured me they have not had the slightest affection of the teeth since, though it is more than twenty years ago. I should be much obliged if any of your intelligent correspondents would inform me, through the medium of your Maga zine, whether they have tried the experi ment? With what success, and who are the operators? The subject may appear trifling to some of your readers, but it is not so to myself. I can neither obtain repose, enjoy the society of my friends, nor amuse myself with my library. At the request of a particular friend, I return your correspondent Verax his grateful thanks for the valuable communication relative to the herb stramonium. My

P.S. Was there ever an attempt of this friend was attacked with all the dreadful

kind acted on?

To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine.

SIR,

[ocr errors]

varieties of the disorder, he endured, bus not enjoyed, existence, and looked forhis worldly sufferings, he consulted the ward with pleasure for a termination to most eminent medical practitioners, and tried every remedy, but with no effect, of Verax, since that time, existence. ull reading in your Magazine the letter which was before a burthen, is rendered doubly delicious by a recollection of his former sufferings.

F any of your readers can refer me to other books, written against what is commonly called Impressing or Pressing Seamen, than those mentioned below, I shall be much obliged to them to give me the information through the channel of your Miscellany. References to passages (of consequence) on this subject, in books which may not be wholly writ- To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. ten on it, whether against the practice or not, will also be acceptable.

1. The Sailors Advocate. 8 edit. I.ond. 1777-
8vo. p. 42, (first printed in 1727-8.)
2. A Short Essay upon the present mode of
Impressing Men, &c. By a Free
holder. Lond. 1791. duodecimo,
p. 22.
3. A Discourse on the Impressing of Mariners,
wherein Judge Forster's Argument is
considered and answered. Lond. Codill.
(no date) 8vo.

4. Essay on the pernicious practice of Im-
pressing Sea- men. Lond. 1760

A CONSTANT READER.

[blocks in formation]

SIR,

ON

E. C.

NE of your correspondents has pointed out several errata in a stereotype edition of Hume and Smollett's History of England, and enquires if any of your numerous correspondents can inform him whether it is pos sible for so many errors to be committed. in the stereotype mode of printing. In answer to his enquiry, I beg leave to remark, that it appears very possible for errors to be committed, if we may judge from the specimens that have been given to the public, and even in books, which, of all others, ought certainly to be printed with the greatest

[blocks in formation]
« ZurückWeiter »