miserable by men who happen to have the abilities and the means*.

Though it is not to be supposed that on a subject where the ablest lawyers have exerted their talents, a man who does not belong to that profession can make any great discovery, yet the following definition of a libel, though perhaps not quite complete, is nevertheless given, being such as will not prove either a dangerous or useless guide for juries.

"To speak or publish what is injurious to ano"ther, may be libellous or not, according to circum"stances. If a man, in order to vindicate himself,

accuse another falsely, that is a libel. If he injures

* About forty years ago the practise of libelling individuals, either directly or by inuendo in the public papers, began, and there are yet living some persons who sprung from indigence to honours and affluence, by such dishonourable proceedings.

There has been a continual effort made by the law lords to crush such publications, and they have nearly succeeded in regard to indivi dual libels; but state libelists, by enlisting under the banners of party, convert what is intended as privation, into a profitable employment, and what is meant as ignominious, into a triumph. The difficulty is doubly great in suppressing such libels, as imprisonment and the pillory are, to some men, rather objects of ambition than otherwise.

"another by publishing a truth with which he has no

66

concern, that also is a libel. But if he publishes "a truth in his own vindication, (or to obtain any "lawful end of his own) though it be to the injury "of another, that is no libel."

In the first case the libel consists in the falsity of the statement, and in the second in not having a justifiable motive, or lawful end in view: this much at least is certain, that truth spoken for a justifiable purpose never can be construed into a libel; and falsehood, if injurious to another, whatever the end may be, must be libellous.

As no gentleman at the bar has had more experience than Sir William Garrow, and few of them have had so much; as he is, besides his experience, by nature possessed of an acute discrimating mind, there cannot easily be conceived any person more fit or capable of assisting in bringing the law, in cases of libel, to some fixed principle. In endeavouring to do that, there is no doubt that the present lord chief justice, Ellenborough, will concur, for he has already done much towards the correcting and ameliorating the law-practice with regard to libels*;

* The constant abuse lavished on the judges by some of the Sunday papers, is rather an honour than otherwise, to those judges. Some

for though it is most essential to the liberties of mankind that the press should be free, it is not less essential to their happiness and safety, that it should be restrained from breaking out into licentious ness*.

men are always at variance with law; and such, whether they are bold banditti, sneaking pickpockets, house-breakers, or libellers, all in their own line, curse the judges. When the refuse of society governed in France, and the most wicked and criminal directed affairs, one of the first acts of their power was to guilotine the judges, twenty-four of whom perished upon one scaffold on one day! The most upright judges in every country might expect the same fate, if they fell into

similar hands.

*There are three sorts of libels-1. Libels on individuals.-2. Libels on the state, or public men.-—And 3. Libels on foreign powers. The definition of libel given will apply completely to the two first descriptions of libel, but some other rule ought to be taken with respect to the latter species. As it may in some instances endanger the safety of the country, it ought to be repressed, on the simple principle, that no individual has a right, for his own advan tage or pleasure, to libel the rulers of foreign states, and thereby bring danger on his country.

Notwithstanding the very able and brilliant defence of M. Peltier, for libelling Buonaparte, made by Sir James M'Intosh; notwithstanding that Mr. Peltier, as a loyal Frenchman, had said nothing too much; and notwithstanding the atrocious manner in which Buonaparte had acted towards France; yet it is impossible to wish

The example of what censure was incurred by the too frequent recurrence to ex officio proceedings by his Majesty's late attorney-general, will, no doubt, added to the good sense of Sir William Garrow, prevent him from falling into a similar error; one,

the publishers of such works to be protected in time of peace. The government of this country scarcely ever acted on so erroneous a principle, or under a more mistaken idea of dignity, than during the short feverish fit of peace that Europe enjoyed. The English ministers stooped to tell a falsehood, when they declared that Mr. Peltier, an alien, could not be prevented from publishing libels on the first consul, knowing, as they did, that an order to quit the kingdom, or the bare intimation of such an order, would have been sufficient ; and it must be fairly admitted, that, though Peltier felt naturally and properly enough for a Frenchman, yet England was not bound to suffer for the irritation of his feelings.

This subject is of more importance than at any former period, on this account that, (let the world enjoy repose when it may), there are new men risen to power on the continent, whose origin and former adventures are not to be mentioned without offence; and therefore, in order not to let such libels again either bring quarrels on the nation, or interfere with national honour and dignity, some provision against a recurrence of similar practices should be made.

It is well known that prosecution only gives publicity to a libel, it is therefore not the sort of satisfaction calculated to satisfy the arbitrary ruler of another country, who knows nothing of the

indeed, far more alarming, and far more dangerous to the liberty of the press, than even the severest legal restrictions, as a man may thereby be ruined and deprived of peace of mind, without being found guilty, or even brought before a jury.

English law, and cannot conceive that such a proceeding is any thing more than mockery and insult, as it augments the injury sus tained, without avenging the offence.

This subject requires serious consideration, in order that we may never again see a prosecution at the king's suit brought on by the remonstrance of a foreign ambassador.

The French government, notwithstanding its insolent tone in speaking of other nations, and its indifference as to whether it offends or not, has never joined in the calumnies raised against any of our royal family. It has never magnified the faults, exposed the foibles, or rejoiced in the affliction of any one member of that family.

In these observations on libels, such offences as Mr. Eaton's, in publishing Paine's Age of Reasons, are not taken into consideration. Works that tend to undermine religion or morality ought to be suppressed, and the authors punished, but the offence appears to require some other name than that of a libel. The nature of the offence is very different from calumny, in which libels generally consist.