Зображення сторінки
PDF
ePub

tempt, to dictate to the Jury. The following extract from a charge of Lord Mansfield, shows how careful he was not to encroach on the exclusive province of the Jury to estimate damages. "I will not say a word "to you about the damages. I am sure no observations on any side can "occur, which you are not capable of making yourselves. You will take "the paper out with you, and will consider all the circumstances of the "case, of a public or private nature."-This charge was delivered in an action of scandalum magnatum (defamation of a nobleman), brought by Lord Sandwich against the printer of the London Evening Post, for the publication of a piece signed Alfred, on the 2nd of Feb. 1773, in which his Lordship, then first Lord of the Admiralty, was falsely accused of having exposed to sale the office of Commissioner of the Navy for the sum of 20001. And this instance of Lord Mansfield's forbearance is the more applicable and forcible, as he was always charged (though I believe very unjustly) with bending the law to favour the ministerial side of the question, and to extend the power of the Judges as far as possible. If he could have found any precedent, or have invented any plausible motive for encroaching on this undoubted province of the Jury, he would not, it is to be presumed, have scrupled to use it on such an occasion.

Another, and still more striking, contrast to your charge is to be found in that of Lord Mansfield's, delivered in the action of Mr. Pitt against the printers of the General Advertiser and the Morning Herald, who accused him, he being at the time Chancellor of the Exchequer, of gambling in the stocks with the money of the nation. Lord Mansfield closed his charge thus: The assessing of the damages is entirely in "your province. I shall not say a word upon it. You will consider "them under all the circumstances of the case, the malignity and the extent, and, for the sake of example, you will give those damages you "think proper."

[ocr errors]

This is the language of an English Judge. How different is it from yours! Lord Mansfield tells the Jury, that to estimate the damages is entirely in their province: that he shall not say a word upon it. You tell your sovereign men, that they are, indeed, the almost uncontrollable judges of damages, and you promise them, that their verdict shall not be set aside, unless it be so outrageously cruel, as, at first blush, to shock every person who hears of it! The libel on Mr. Pitt was a most atrocious one, yet Lord Mansfield forbears to suggest the propriety of great damages, and tells the Jury to give what they think proper, for the sake of example only. But you call for damages both compensatory and exemplary; you urge them to bring upon the head of the defendant the consequences of both a civil and a criminal prosecution! You do, indeed, observe to them, that "the damages must not be so enormous as absolutely to ruin the offender." This was a wholesome caution: it was telling them how far they might go, without endangering the success of the scheme; it was saying to them, "Ruin him in effect, but "take care to do it in such a way as will not defeat our intention. Bilk him, embarrass him, break up his business, and plunge him into "debt; but be careful not to let your malice so far overshoot the mark, as to leave us no excuse for confirming your verdict."-This was pretty

66

[ocr errors]

The damages given for falsely accusing Mr. Pitt of this heinous offence was 2507.-British printers, bless your kind stars!!

language from a Court to a Jury! The Jury followed your directions with great exactness, and the malignant slaves thought they had given me a deadly blow; but that blow, while it has had no effect on me, has recoiled with redoubled force on themselves, their accomplices, and their city.

But your pretext for recommending a ruinous verdict, is, if possible, more atrocious than the recommendation itself. "Offences of this kind," say you, "have, for some time past, too much abounded in our "city; it seems high time to restrain them—that task is with you, Gentle"men."-So, because offences of the same kind had abounded in the city, because they had passed unnoticed, because they had been tolerated, I was to be all but absolutely ruined I was to suffer for what all others had done, and also for the negligence of Courts and Juries! Precious justice this!

Yes; offences, not of " this kind," but of a much worse kind, had, indeed, for a long time abounded in your city. Libels the most false, scandalous, and malicious; publications the most obscene and most impious, had long abounded, and do still abound; and had I shared in these publications, not a farthing of damages would ever have been given against me. But I was a British subject; I had defended the character of my King and country against the infamous calumnies that you and your associates suffered to be propagated; I exposed the little despots of America ; I had contrasted their character with that of the King, against whom they were continually endeavouring to revive the animosity of the people; and it was for this, and this alone, that you and your associates hated me. At the very moment when you gave this scandalous charge, when you called aloud for ruin on my head, you were perfectly convinced that I had rendered America essential services; you knew that my character was unblemished, and that my conduct, as a publisher, was singularly laudable; you knew that I never wilfully published a falsehood; you knew that, as a bookseller, I never gave circulation to a seditious, an irreligious, or an immoral publication, but that, on the contrary, I had constantly endeavoured to obstruct the progress of such works, and that I had been the patron of every effort to counteract their deleterious effects. All this you knew, and with all this in your mind, you uttered the malignant charge which I this day rescue from that oblivion to which its stupidity had condemned it.*

One fact only remains to be narrated, and a most valuable one it is. I beg every Englishman to pay good attention to it, and to bless God for not having placed him under the jurisdiction of an American Judge.

The trial was begun on the 13th, and the 5000 dollar verdict was given on the 14th of December. It is well known that after every verdict, four days are allowed, previous to entering up the judgment, in order to enable the defendant to prepare for application for an arrest of judgment. On the 17th, therefore, my counsellor, Mr Edward Tilghman, made a motion for a rule to show cause why the verdict and judgment should not

* The partiality of these people does not appear in its true light, till it is known' that Mr. Fenno, who was sued at the same time, and for the very same pretended libel. has been suffered to go off without further notice. They hate Fenno for his royalist principles, but he being an American, they knew that it would be hard to find a Jury to assess heavy damages against him, and to have given 5000 dollars against me, while they only gave, perhaps, 100 against him, would have been too glaring a proof of their infamy. For the same reason the action against him will never be brought to issue.

be set aside for excessiveness of damages; which motion was rejected by you and your associates. Well might you reject it! for, on the 16th, the day before you refused the new trial, I was actually arrested for the 5000 dollars at New-York! so that it appears, that the plaintiff and his counsel were sure, quite sure, that a new trial would not be granted two days, at least, before that new trial was moved for !-Vivat Respublica! Huzza for liberty and revolution!

[ocr errors]

And what do I care for all this?" say you; "I have got the post of Chief Justice, and shall hold it; and in spite of all the exposures you can make, I shall still have the huzzas of the base herd of Americans." -That is true enough: 1 have not encountered the hopeless task of making any impression on you, or on the wretched beings by whom you are surrounded; but I know where I shall produce an impression: and though my labours may be slow in their operation, they will be sure and lasting in their effects.

W. COBBETT.

The Rushlight has already made some astonishing exposures respecting the much-boasted liberty of the press. It has many more to make. The mean arts and the abominable tyranny employed in Philadelphia, for the purpose of effecting the suppression of this work, surpass all that ever has been recorded of the detestable Court of Star-Chamber. The Governments of America appear to me to be approaching very fast towards absolute despotism. If a writer, like the author of the Pursuits of Literature, were in this country, he would be ruined, if not assassinated, in less than twelve months. The poor printers and booksellers are reduced to a degree of slavish dread hardly to be conceived; and to hear the language of the inhabitants in general, one would really imagine that the bloody laws of Valentinian (on which M Kean lately pronounced an eulogium) were in full force.t

PORCUPINE'S REVENGE,

A Dialogue between Rush and Porcupine.

Rush. Master Peter, you see, with my twelve sovʼreign men,
I have tipp'd you a squeeze for the strokes of your pen.
These twelve sov'reign men, now I no longer need them,
How shall I reward?

When Shippen closed his charge, there was a clapping of hands amongst the people, who filled the galleries and the area of the Court-house; and when the verdict was pronounced, the joy of the malignant wretches broke out into loud and repeated acclamations! Nor was this joy confined to the herd of spectators; the shouting in the Court house was the next day recorded by the news-printers, who exulted in this proof of the zeal and justice of their fellow-citizens!

A few days ago a paragraph appeared in a Philadelphia paper, recommending the passing of a law to punish the lenders and the readers of libels! This paragraph was. I am informed, written and published at the request of an officer under the Federal Government. Now let me ask, what the people of England would say to the editor of any of those papers that are called ministerial, were they to broach such a proposition as this? Would the public bear it? And is not its being borne here, without a murmur, a clear proof that the people have no true notion of liberty, and that they are amused with the name, while the thing is not known amongst them?

Peter.

Why, bleed them, Rush, bleed them.
Rush. But to the Judge on the bench, so just and humane,
(The worthy successor and tool of M'Kean);
To my lawyers who bellow'd so loudly against you,
To Hopkinson, Ingersol, Levi the Jew,

Peter.

The half-quaker Lewis (who once was a carter),
And your faithful counsel, the mob-courting Harper ;
To my volunteer witnesses, grateful young Mease,
To the poor Dr. Coxe, and poor granny Dewees,
(Who gen'rously came, with no duty to urge them,)
What return shall I make?

Why, purge them, Rush, purge them!

Enter Grave-Digger.

Grave-Dig. By my soul, Master Peter, I think it too hard

That with such folks as these I must fill my church-yard.
Peter. Church-yard! honest fellow, my meaning's not such;
For, where a man's buried it matters not much;

And the great Dr. Mitchell (of bleeding renown)
Says, "Let all human carrion be dragg'd out of town."

A TRAGEDY SCENE.

Enter SANGRADO, with the Rush-Light in his hand. He remains for about · half an hour in stupid, sullen silence; and then, starting from his reverie, pours forth, in slow and melancholy accents, the following soliloquy.

Unthinking Doctor, wherefore did thy rage
Urge thee with printer's prowess to engage?
O, why from puffing to the law retire?
Why for thyself construct the fun'ral fire?

What though an Ingersol before thee stood,

With dangling brush, to paint thee fair and good ;
A weeping Hopkinson, dear tender creature,

Sobbing to wail the injuries of Nature;

What though kind-hearted jurors press'd thee round,
And philanthropic judges too were found;

What though the gentle, just, and gen'rous crowd
The verdict sanctioned with applauses loud;

What though five thousand dollars were the prize,
Which, in idea, gratified thine eyes?
Say! could such lenitives relieve thy shame,
Or reunite thee to thy shadow, fame ?
Could they kill Peter, whose vindictive art
So well directs his venom to thy heart?
Could they prevent exposure and disgrace,
Or change the tincture of an Ethiop's face?
Oh, no! they bade these hellish fires arise,
And bound thee to the stake. (He dies)

PRIESTLEY'S CHARITY SERMON

FOR

POOR EMIGRANTS.

NOTE BY THE EDITORS.-In the Porcupine, vol. 9, p. 389, we find this Sermon of Dr. PRIESTLEY, with notes upon it by Mr. Cobbett. The Sermon was delivered, it appears, in the University Hall in Philadelphia, on the 9th of February, 1797; and, while urging the claims of the distressed in general, it seems to have been more particularly intended to relieve those who had emigrated from Great Britain and Ireland. We insert below so much of the Sermon as will be necessary to our purpose; which is, to give one of Mr. COBBETT's notes, in which he maintains the principles of our old Poor-law system, in opposition to some notions here put forth by the DOCTOR. Though the following contains but a part of Dr. PRIESTLEY's arguments, we have been careful to preserve the strongest of his assertions in favour of relief, as well as those to which Mr. CoвBETT objects as having an opposite tendency.-See the asterisk towards the close of the extract, which marks the passage to which the NOTE coming after refers.

"LET not the rich man make a boast of his charity, as if he gave what he was under no obligation to give. For, strictly speaking, it is a debt which he owes to the needy. Benevolence being the great law of our natures, and the happiness of all being the great object of the Divine government, whatever it be that promotes this end is the proper duty of all, according to their respective abilities, to contribute to it; and any person is guilty of a breach of trust who refrains from doing it. All the good that any man can do he ought to do. The Divine Being, our common Parent, expects it of him as a member of his large family; and if he judge the world in righteousness, as he assuredly will, he will punish the person who does less than it was in his power to do, as having neglected a duty that was incumbent on him.

"In whatever manner any person becomes possessed of wealth, it is the gift of God. If it have accrued to him from superior ingenuity or superior industry, that very superior ingenuity and spirit of activity are alike the gift of God, who makes one man to differ, in these respects as well as others, from another man: so that, as the apostle says (1 Cor. iv. 7), God may say to any man, What hast thou that thou hast not received? And if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received it? Consequently, not to make that disposition of our wealth which the Giver of it intended that we should, is to be guilty of ingratitude to God and real injustice to man. It is to act the part of an unfaithful steward. For in this light, and no other, ought we to consider ourselves with respect to everything that we have to spare, after the supply of our own wants.

"Neither let the rich boast of their independence with respect to the poor. In fact, they are more dependent upon the poor than the poor are upon them; and were all persons reduced to a level, every advantage of which they now boast would vanish. They must then labour for them

« НазадПродовжити »