inquisition inflicted, is there no motive more probable, than that of disaffection to his country, and a wish to create tumult and violence? Is it so difficult to distinguish between that warmth of language which the consideration of what we think injures and disgraces our country calls forth, and that which would be used by the enemy of his country for the purposes of mutiny or rebellion? In the case which we are noticing, the verdict of the jury was in favour of the defendants; that is, they pronounced the paragraph complained of by the attorney-general not to be a libel this paragraph had been copied from the Stamford news paper, the editor of which was subsequently tried at Lincoln, and the jury there found a verdict against the defendant. Is it necessary to say more respecting the uncertainty of the law of libel? : The other trial for libel, to which we alluded, and on which we inti mated our intention of offering some remarks, was that of Mr, White, the editor of a Sunday newspaper entitled The Independent Whig. Mr. White, at the time the alleged libel appeared in his newspaper, was suffering the punishment of a former, of which he had been convicted, in the gaol of Dorchester. Here, then, is the first hardship in this case; we will for a moment allow that the paragraph complain ed of by the attorney-general was a libel, and that the guilty person ought to have been tried and punish ed for it. But who, in this instance, in the estimation of common sense and of justice, could be deemed the guilty person? The law very properly makes the master answerable for the deeds of the servant, in all cases where the deed is not criminal. If a libel appear in a newspaper, it will not hear of the excuse or justification of the editor, if that excuse rests on the plea, that he was ignorant of the insertion of the paragraph, and that it was inserted by one of his servants, employed in the printing of the newspaper, solely of his own accord. But why does the law so pronounce? Surely, because it supposes, and justly too, that the master overlooks the actions of his servants; and that while he takes care that they are industrious and attentive, so as to secure and promote his own interest, it is his duty also to be on the watch, that they do not injure the public. But in the instance of Mr. White, how did the case stand? He was sent down to Dorchester, and there confined in a gaol: that is, the law, by its own act, took away from him all possibility of overlooking or checking his servants, and yet punishes him because they did wrong. But it may be urged, that he had no right to carry on a concern which he could not overlook; and that if, so carrying it on, the laws of his country were infringed, his punish ment was only just and merited. So then, according to this doctrine, the sentence of one or two years imprisonment for a libel is much more severe than to common ap prehension it would appear. To those not conversant in the practice of our courts, such a sentence would imply merely a confinement for that period; or, it may be, they might anticipate a confinement at a distance from the abode of the person's friends and the scene of his business: but they would hardly anticipate a still more severe punishment implied and intended in the sentence of the court, that the cul prit should be confined for one or two years: they would not suppose that that the total abandonment of the person's usual mode of livelihood were meant and yet, if the law has the power to send the editor of a newspaper to such a distant gaol as shall make it impossible for him to superintend the printing, and yet holds him amenable for whatever of a seditious or libellous nature may appear in it, does not the punishment actually amount to this? the guilt of the writer was enormous: that therefore the law should direct its research and punishment towards the author, and let the publisher pass by as comparatively innocent. But afterwards, on the trial of an editor of one of the daily newspapers for a libel on the soldiery, the guilt of the author, according to the same attorney-general, was a mere evanescent quantity, when compared with that of the publisher. In the case of Mr. White, the On that trial the author was given jury were fully sensible of the hard- up. The libel was written when ship under which he laboured, and the editor was in bed; and it was accordingly they delivered their not seen by any but the workmen verdict, after having been in the in the printing-office before it was box for four hours, in writing, in published. It might therefore have the following words :-"The jury been supposed, that the editor's find the defendant guilty of print- share of guilt was not very great; ing and publishing the libel, through since the intention was without the medium of his agent; but, on proof or even probability: on the account of his peculiar situation, contrary, there was proof that the earnestly recommend him to mercy." feelings and intention of the editor Mr. Lowten, the clerk of the court, lay the opposite way; for soon in the absence of lord Ellenborough, afterwards he inserted in the same objected to the verdict, unless he paper a long letter to do away the might consider it as "Guilty." This impression which the libel might the jury were not disposed to ad- be calculated to produce: yet the mit; so that, after retiring for about editor was chosen by the attorneyten minutes, they returned a ver- general, in preference to the author, dict of Not guilty. was tried, and sentenced to impriWe have already adverted to the sonment for a twelvemonth. uncertainty of the law of libel, so. In the case of Mr. White, the far as regards the definition of the author was in the hands of the atcrime; but this trial, when com- torney-general: the proprietor of pared with other trials for the same the newspaper was at a great dioffence carried on by the present stance; not absent for pleasure, or attorney-general, will furnish us business, and on their account with other proofs, that this part of leaving the superintendence of the our code needs looking after, that newspaper in improper hands. The it needs revision and amendment. absence of Mr. White was caused On the trial of Cobbet for a libel by the operation of the law; the respecting military flcgging, the judges had sent him to a place attorney-general, drawing a com- where he could not, let him have parative scale of the guilt of the been ever so anxious, prevent the different parties, laid it down as insertion of a libel in his newspaper; indubitable, that the guilt of the they had sent him there, in consepublisher was nothing was at the quence of a prosecution by the lowest point of the scale; while attorney general; and yet he was now now brought before these judges by that same attorney-general, to take his trial for a libel inserted, without his knowledge, during his absence. How much more in unison with the spirit of the British constitution, then, would the law and the practice in the case of libe! be, if exofficio informations were done away; if a grand jury were interposed between the accusation and the trial; if common and not special juries were invariably summoned to try cases of libel; if the punishment were confined to imprisonment in the gaol of the district where the crime was committed; and if, above all, our statute books enabled, or made it the duty of, the judges to give a more perspicuous and precise definition of this crime! Let us hope that government, though naturally, and perhaps justly and wisely, slow in changing any part of our constitution, will investigate this branch of it; and do away the reproach raised against Englishmen, that their boasted freedom of the press amounts to little more than the liberty of speaking well of the minister and his measures. Closely connected with this subject is the discussion that took place in the house of commons, towards the end of March, respecting the state of the press in India. The argument, however, on this subject, will on examination be found to be not nearly so powerful in favour of the liberty of the press, as when the question applies to this country. That the freedom of the press is a good, cannot be denied: but it happens in the moral' and political world, as it happens in the human constitution, that from some morbid affection, or weakness, what is, in itself and generally speaking, a good, may produce much serious mischief. One undoubted maxim however may be laid down, that wherever free dis. cussion is really dangerous,-that is, dangerous and hostile, not merely to despotic measures, and to the despot himself, but to the wellbeing of the people,-in that case, the state and condition of the people is bad; and if it is the interest as well as the duty of the government to put fetters on the press, because otherwise the governed might be injured, it is much more their interest and duty, by all the means in their power, to root out from the people every feature in their character, which converts the wholesome food of free discussion into a deadly poison. Where free discussion actually does harm, it must arise, either from a despotic government, whose measures, if detailed in their true colours, would produce tumult and insurrection; or from an ignorant people: and in either case, by removing the cause, free discussion would flourish, and strengthen and benefit the com. munity, instead of convulsing and poisoning it. CHAPTER IX. Itroductory Remarks to the Consideration of Lord Sidmouth's Bill for the Amendment of the Toleration Act--Sketch of the History of Religious Freedom in this Country during the present Reign-Its present State-Causes which produced produced the Evil that Lord Sidmouth wished to remove by his Bill-Grounds on which he supported his Bill-Opposition made to it by all Class's of Dissent T5-The Facts and Arguments they urgel og int it-Remarks on the supposed Necessity and probable Consequences of the bill-Establishment of a National Institution for educating the Poor--Causes and Motives which gave rise to it-Dr. Bell and Mr. Lancaster's Merits and Plans considered -Good Effects that will result from the National Institution-Obstacles in The Way in England greater than in Scotland Olservations on the E couragement our Government gives to Persons who forsake the Serve of the Enemy -Their Motives questionable-The Doctrine of Assassination held by them Is Justice and Utility considered. to deem heresy, was sure to meet The Reformation was of service to mankind, not merely by keeping religion more apart from civil opinions, but also, in a still gre ter degree, by introducing more liberality and wisdom into the minds of men in power. They perceived, that it was not only unjust, but extremely foolish, to persecute on account of difference of opinion in religious matters; and though even the British government, the most liberal and enlightened of all, had not the good sense to expunge from the statute book all the laws which denounced punishment on heretics, yet they took care that they became obsolete and dormant. HAVING detailed those events with the domestic history of Great Britain for the year 1811, which relate to the civil and political liberty of the subject; and taken the opportunity, which they afforded, of offering some observations on the law of libel, as it at present stands; we shall now proceed to the record of an event in which the religious liberty of Britons was generally thought to be very much involved and interested. But before we come to the event itself, it may be proper to premise a short sketch of the progress of religious Liberty during the last half century; the actual state in which it at present exists; and the causes which gave rise to the event which we A spirit of religious liberty has are about to record and consider. particularly distinguished the preEver since the reformation of sent reign: and this spirit has religion, the line of separation be- manifested itself, both by rot acting tween a man's belief and practice, upon obsolete statutes, and by the so far as they regarded his maker actual repeal of some of the most and a future word, has been kept obnoxious of them. It would be pretty distinct, in the view of most invidions and unjust to inquire, governments, from his opinions how far and in what respects this and conduct, so far as they regard- religious liberty has proceeded from ed his duty as a member of civil religious indifference; since the society. Before that event took motives of all men, and particularplace, so powerful was the influence y or those in power, are much which priests possessed and exercised mixed; and those who are governover the consciences and the con- ed, provided they are governed duct of all men in power, that wisely, and in such a manner as seheresy, or what they were pleased cures their liberty and happiness, ought ought not to be inquisitive or scrupulous about the principles or the motives of their governors. But although the inquiry respecting religious indifference, or a real and conscientious regard to religious liberty, should not be pushed too far, so far as respects men in power; yet it is a very fair and legitimate object, so far as regards those who are appointed by government, to watch over the interests of the established church. By an accurate and nea: examination into their character and conduct, we shall probably be able to detect the circumstances which induced lord Sidmouth to introduce the bill which we are about to consider, and which created such general and deep alarm among the friends of religious toleration. It is impossible (whatever may have been urged respecting the French at the beginning of their evolution) that the mass of any people should exist without religion; and their religion will get nerally be more a matter of feeling than of reasoning; rather gross and palpable, than refined and spiritual . To keep them out of the lowest and most degrading superstition on the one hand, and the most ridiculous enthusiasm on the other, requires, on the part of the established clergy, not merely unremitting attention and warm but rational zeal, but that knowledge of the human character which will be able to make use of, without encouraging or strengthen ing, the prejudices of the vulgar, and which, in their discourses from the pulpit, will lead them to mix up just so much enthusiasm as will serve to warm the hearts without leading astray the judgement of their hearers. While the established clergy acted in this manner, their churches were full, their sermons were attended to with seriousness, and their advice was followed; but many causes, some resulting from the progress of luxury, wealth and refinement, and others from less definable and precise sources, operated to produce languor and remissness in the established clergy. They lost the hold they were accustomed to possess over the minds and opinions of their flocks; their churches were deserted; and the multitude resorted to other pastors. We have already remarked that the mass of the people cannot exist without religion; and that, if care is not taken, their religion will be of the grossest kind. From this kind of religion, while the established clergy were zealous, active and attentive to their duty, the mass of the people were in a great mea sure preserved: the established clergy, generally speaking, could have no interest or inclination to lead them into it. But when the multitude went astray from their regular and accustomed places of worship, they soon found pastors, who either from conscientious or worldly motives preached a religion that fell-in exactly with their natural disposition. Thus, while the established churches were de. serted, the chapels of these new pastors were filled; while men of talents and of sober religion were forsaken and disregarded, men destitute of all information were followed by the admiring crowd. The remedy for this evil is certainly not very obvious nor very easy: but though what will be of service cannot be pointed out clearly and expressly; yet it may safely be pronounced, that nothing that savours in the slightest degree of intolerance of persecution will bę |