solely to protect foreign Sovereigns and Governments, and even their diplomatic agents, but the Government of the country itself, and the people of the country, and individuals of all descriptions. I think you will experience some difficulty in prevailing upon the King to adopt this principle. He is not disposed to admit that abuse in print is a provocation to a breach of the peace at least equal to abuse by word of mouth; and he will not see that the consequences of permitting the former must be that those upon whom this licentiousness of the press is exercised, will end by committing breaches of the peace, or, in other words, by horsewhipping authors, editors, and printers. I have been witness to this result of the licentiousness of the press in Spain, and I think we are coming fast to it in England; and then it will be seen how necessary it is to protect individuals effectually from this evil. What would be said of a law in any country which should permit one individual to say what he pleased of another, either before his face or behind his back? Yet what is more preposterous in such a law than in having such an absence of law to prevent the licentiousness of the press, as that any man may, with impunity, print what he pleases of any individual?

But it is important that the Government and individuals should be protected from this licentiousness, not only for their own sakes, but for the general interest of Europe. Foreign Sovereigns and Governments don't like to meet an author or a printer in a Court of Justice, and they would prefer to pass unnoticed many libels, rather than come forward to prosecute. But it must not be supposed that, because these libels are not prosecuted, they do not give offence, and indispose the Sovereigns and Governments who are the objects of them towards the King of the Netherlands and his country.

That, then, to which the King and his Government should direct their attention, and should make the object of their legislation, should be to put down the spirit of libelling, and to get rid of the nest of libellers who have established themselves

in this country; and it appears to me that one of the best modes of effecting this object is to attack libels of all descriptions, whether directed against foreigners or subjects, against foreign Governments or that of the King himself.

I concur with you also entirely in thinking that it is desirable to make all persons responsible concerned in the publication of a libel, whether editors, publishers, printers, hawkers, &c. I enclose Benjamin Constant's last pamphlet on the press in France, in which you will see the effect produced at Paris, by a return of the Procureur du Roi against printers. All will tend to the same good end of checking the spirit of libel, which is the great desideratum in the Netherlands.

I don't think your Memoire explains sufficiently clearly your principle on confinement, as well as fine. You mean that every convict of a libel should be both confined and fined, according to the discretion of the Court, within certain limits, to be guided by the nature and degree of the offence, and the latter by the situation of the party. For instance, you don't should be confined only

mean that a man fined 50,000 florins

a month, or a man fined 50 florins should be confined for five years. I should confine them all, according to the nature of the offence, and fine them besides, according to their means

of paying.

WELLINGTON.

Lord Clancarty to the Duke of Wellington.

Bruxelles, July 20, 1817.

My dear Duke-I have received yours of the 26th, [18th ?] it reached me only last night. I very well feel all you say on the advantage of well defining libel. The great difficulty is, however, in what manner to do so. If a definition, especially in a final law, is too precise, it necessarily excludes from the operation of the act all that does not fall within it. Of necessity, therefore, it seems to me that the description of the offence, whatever it may be, should be general: the definition

adopted in the Memoire (with which, I will admit, I am not well satisfied) is taken from that used in our law for the description of the same offence, but somewhat extended, in order to embrace more than our law does. I shall not fail to look into the Code Penale, as you have recommended, a copy of which will be on my table this morning, but not early enough to comment upon it by your messenger. I, however, must more rely on your assistance in furnishing me with a proper definition, than on my own labours, which, after much employment, have only produced the unsatisfactory one appearing on the face of the Memoire.

I am well aware that considerable difficulty will occur in prevailing upon the King to adopt even the principles and the practicable remedies recommended in the Memoire: at no time very coulant, he is particularly wayward at the present moment. As nothing, however, appears in the paper but what is essentially connected with the advancement of the general cause, with his own interests and tranquillity, whenever the work shall have received the finishing stroke, by the receipt of your final observations upon it, and those which I have also canvassed for from our own Government and from Sir Charles Stuart, I shall deliver it in, and urge its maxims and recommendations to the utmost of my power, and the reasoning of your letter will very much fortify me in pressing them.

Upon the subject of fine and imprisonment for libel, as proposed in the Memoire, it had been my intention to have left. the quantum of each altogether at the discretion of the Court, and this even to the full extent of the cases you put, of 50,000 florins and three months' imprisonment, or 50 florins fine and five years' imprisonment, as I can well foresee circumstances. which, in certain cases, might require even such an extent. should, however, be disposed, on this, as on all other matters connected with the subject, to forego my own, in favour of your opinions, if, on reconsideration, such shall be your opinion.

I

The French Chargé d'Affaires here has announced that the King of France's protection is withdrawn from ten individuals contained in a list, a copy of which was furnished me by Sir C. Stuart, and reached me last night with yours. The subject has, therefore, been before the King, without the interference of any person whatever, and I do not believe the slightest difficulty will exist in expelling all these persons from these territories, with the exception of Chambrin, to whom you already know that the King incautiously gave letters of naturalization during the first days of his reign. I have recommended M. de Nagell to communicate privately, through R. Fagel, with the Duc de Richelieu, on the subject of this person, representing the difficulty in which the King is placed on this point, and seeking to be released from the same by having Chambrin excepted, who will, I hope, however, be placed under surveillance.

After various disguises, feigned names, &c., M. Mehée de la Touche was at length seized here yesterday, and is now in durance vile, and will be sent off under the Protocol of August, 1815. Nagell will probably settle with the King on Monday respecting Lobau, and, I have no doubt, in the manner you wish. Whenever this takes place, I will send you word of it immediately by one of my messengers. I wish you had mentioned the probable length of your stay at Mont St. Martin prior to your journey to Paris.

I have spoken to M. de Nagell about deserters, and he will speak to the King on the subject to-morrow, and orders will probably be sent to the Mayor at Ostend, in conformity with your desires. If your Grace gets into correspondence with Mr. Rochfort, it may not be so easy to get out of it. I have long since been obliged to insist upon this gentleman's finding his way to me, except in pressing cases, only through the Consul-General.

Did you ever hint to M. de Salles, the Sardinian Chargé d'Affaires here, and who attended your Grace in the battle of

My dear Duke-10-20 specting the expon de Loban, would log either have been au

Nagell has constat e taken to obtain the grace which shows the commencer would-neither dim accorded by his Mayong. the receipt of your answer, notifying he Grace his Majesty's was accordingly lad detained by him; objection to M. de L pretends to have any seems there is a j his Majesty is d aside) to work thi

the price of his s

M. de Nagell,
you might con

a most reasonable
all the Allies,
ject, when his
upon to make

interposing in