tion they are likely to be in. In fhort, I do not fee what can be the iffue of fuch law, but an univerfal acquief cence to any men or any measures, that is, a downright paffive obedience. There is one great reason, why every patriot should with this fort of writings to be encouraged; which is, that animadverfions upon the conduct of Minifters, fubmitted to the eye of the public in print, muft in the nature of the thing be a great check upon their bad actions, and, at the fame time, an incentive to their doing of what is praifeworthy. Nevertheless, if it be once clear law, That a paper may be a libel, whether true or falfe, written against a good or bad man, when alive or dead, who is there that may not continue a Minister, whether he has a grain of honefty or understanding, if he should happen to be a favourite at Court? The worse his actions are, the more truly and fharp the writer ftates them, and the more the public, from his juft reasonings, deteft and cry out against them, the more fcandalous and feditious, of courfe, will be the libel; for, the truth of the fact is an aggravation of the libel, and it was That which occafioned the clamour. There is but one step farther before you arrive at complete defpotifm, and that is to extend the fame doctrine to words spoken, and This I am perfuaded would in truth very foon follow. And then what a blessed condition fhould we all be in! when neither the liberty of free writing or free fpeech, about every body's concern, about the management of public money, public law and public affairs, was permitted; and every body was afraid to utter what every body however could not help thinking! With refpect to libels on particular perfons in their private capacities, there may be fome little foundation for a doctrine of this fort; because, as the welfare of the State has nothing to do with his private tranfactions, you ought not to make reflections which may injure him in his calling or his reputation; you must always do this out of perfonal fpite, and therefore ought to be punished for such malevolence. your But, the cafe is totally different with refpect to an Administration; for the country in general is always the better or the worfe for its conduct, and therefore every man has a right to know, to confider, and to reflect upon It. Their pofts in the State, or their public characters, are not like any individual's particular trade, profeffion or for tune, or his private character. The writing of them out of their places in the Government is not a lofs for which they have any right to be repaired in damages. Their holding ought only to be quam diu bene fe gefferint, and of this the people at large ought to be made judges, as every man in this country is reprefented, and confequently con cerned in the legiflature itself. However, from a confufion of these two different kinds of libels, introduced and upheld from very bad motives, it feems to me that a general doctrine has been laid down, Now, my notion is, that in public libels the truth of the charge fhould be an abfolute defence, whatever may be thought neceffary with regard to private libels. The public is effentially interested in this difcrimination being made. When men find themselves aggrieved by the violence or the misconduct of the perfons appointed to the Ministry, it is natural for them to complain, to communicate their thoughts to others, to put their neighbours on their guard, and to remonftrate in print against the public proceedings. They have a right fo to do, as much as a borough has a right to reject any Court candidate, and to publish the reafons for fo doing; and both of thefe rights will I hope be exercised until there can be both a congè de dire and d'ecrire, and a congè d'elire, established in the State as there already is in the church. The liberty of expofing and oppofing a bad Adminiftration by the pen is among the neceffary privileges of a free people, and is perhaps the greatest benefit that can be derived from the liberty of the prefs. But Minifters, who by their mifdeeds provoke the people to cry out and complain, are very apt to make that very complaint the foundation of a new oppreffion, by profecuting the fame as a libel on the State. Now, the merit or demerit of these publications must arife from their being true or false; if they are true, they are highly com mendable; if they are wilfully falfe, they are certainly malicious, feditious and damnable. The mere pretence of a paper being feditious, if the matter of it be fact, is to be difregarded; for, I do not fee how any writer can publifh to the world the jufteft and most important complaints, without tending thereby to render the people and their con conftituents diffatisfied with the adminiftration, and even clamorous against it. Nay, I fcarcely can frame to myself any other way of letting his Majefty know that the miniftry he has appointed is bad. However, if a minifter notwithstanding fhould continue a favorite at court, and the people being affected with what was written fhould clamor, and have great reafon for fo doing, I make no doubt but any Attorney-General upon the flightest hint from the proper. place, would file an information against the Writer, and charge him at once with endeavouring to alienate the affections of the people, and to raise traitorous infurrections against the peace of the King; altho' it were obvious to every indifferent perfon, that the unlucky writer had no fuch intention, nay, had been ready on a former occafion voluntarily to affociate for the defence of his Majesty's title, and to venture his life in the field to support it. And yet I am fully convinced, that were it not for fuch writings as have been profecuted by Attorney Generals for libels, we fhould never have had a Revolution, nor his prefent Majefty a regal Crown; nor fhould we now enjoy a proteftant religion, or one jot of civil liberty. Kings can hardly receive any intelligence but what their minifters give them, and thefe gentlemen, being generally guided by avarice and ambition, endeavour to reprefent every man who ftrives to get them difmiffed from their employs, as one who is about to attack the throne itself, call him traitor directly, and then exert the power of the crown to demolish him. The ufe of the word treafonable is generally, in my confcience, to give them a pretence for difregarding the common rules of Law and Juftice. And if they are queftioned in parliament for what they have done, they are in hopes a majority may be procured to come to a refolution in their favor, or at worft, to prevent any from being come to against them. And then, who dares fay they have done amifs ? Libels are by no means a "harmless fport"; for truth alone can excufe any man in complaining even of a bad magiftrate: but yet, I cannot think them fuch dreadful things as vindicate minifters in breaking through every law for the fake of coming at the writer. I believe moft fober men, who fee already what lengths fuch profecutions may be carried according to law, and how deeply the liberties of the people may be affected by fuch means, are of opi nion, that if fome of the legal methods of profecution now acquiefced in were done away, the conftitution would be the better for it. The prerogative which an Attorney General affumes of filing an information against whomsoever he pleafes, is certainly a reproach to a free people; and if the regular information awarded upon special motion by the King's-Bench were likewise taken away, I do not think the conftitution would be injured by it: in which case, the old common law method of indicting for a libel, as a violation of the peace, would be the means that every body muft refort to; and in my own opinion a grand jury * are very competent and the propereft judges whether any publication be deftructive to the welfare of the state or not. Altho' there is as yet no licenfing act afoot, except for the Stage; If a man prints what is fuppofed libellous either on the state, or any particular perfon, he is liable to be profecuted for it. But people like to fee a profecutiou go forward in the ordinary way, as was the cafe with Dr. Shebbeare: in comparison with whofe writings, thofe of Mr. Wilkes may really be faid to be “ a mere exercise of 'wit and talents, and an innocent exertion of the liberty of the prefs." Mankind will ever diflike violent proceedings. Altho' the perfon himself may merit the chastisement he meets with, yet if this be inflicted by illegal methods, it will make every man fear, fhould he raife the refentment of the ministry, that himself would be treated in like manner, whether he had committed any crime in law or not. If things are done in one inftance contrary to law, they may in another. No man is fecure, when the laws of the land ceafe to be a protection. Although the mesfenger, or the dragoon, be not at my door, yet it is very "difheartening to find that it is no longer in my power to be fecure against their being there. My liberty is equally gone. No neceffities of state can ever be a reafon for quitting the road of law in the purfuit of a libeller. The attack of this class of writers feldom goes farther than the minifter, for the fake of bringing in fome other man; and fo far from being "of all other the inftance the most dan gerous * See a valuable treatife upon Grand Juries called The Security of Enge libmen's Lives, attributed to Mr. Somers, who not only understood the comAitution but loved it. gerous to the public quiet" is certainly not at all fo, if by the public quiet be meant the establishment itself. But, if any writing fhould be a libel, and be profecuted only as fuch, it is in vain afterwards to call it " abominable or treasonable," with any idea that fuch epithets will warrant an extraordinary proceeding in the profecutor. This end indeed it may anfwer, and a very diabolical one it is; it may ferve to found a pretence for demanding exceffive bail, which if the fuppofed libeller cannot find, he must lie in prifon: however, as there have several acts of parliament paffed from time to time forbidding exceffive bail, particularly the Habeas Corpus act, and as the House of Commons have even fince in the cafe of Lord Chief Juftice Scroggs expreffed their deteftation of fuch oppreffion, a Judge is not now fo likely to put this mode of tyranny in use. But, if the doctrine of fecurity for the peace can be established, I do not fee what fhould hinder a time-ferving magiftrate, from infifting upon ever fo enormous a pledge co nomine: The Judge might fay, I have taken moderate bail; but, I found he was a man of parts, much dif-inclined to his Majefty's measures of administration, and had reason to think he would ftill write against them, which could not fail of raising a dangerous fedition, and therefore I thought the best way was to take fuch a pledge for his good behaviour for feven years, as would deter him from writing any thing that could poffibly be deemed a libel; for if he did, he would forfeit his caution-money, and That would be fo great a lofs, it would absolutely ruin him. I did for the best; and, I do not know that there is any ftatute which prefcribes any measure for fecurity of the peace. Now, fuppofing a chief Juftice was to be complained of for fuch an oppreffion, as a grofs fraud on the fpirit and intention of the Habeas Corpus act, and the House of Commons were to inquire into the matter; if the administration which he ferved was then prevalent, it might perhaps be very difficult to obtain any cenfure of the practice; but, if that could be done, it is highly improbable they would go any farther; and, at the worst, his Lordship would get off without any fine upon himself, as well as Chief Juftice Scroggs did. To fay the truth, and to speak out upon fo material a fubject, I cannot help imagining that this word treasonable or traitorous is frequently thrown into the charge against a supposed libeller |