follows resignation and forgiveness is its reward. Lethe is only another name for that surrender of the unkindly mood, by which we secure the blessing of sweeter waters.

ART. VIII.-THE LAW OF LIBEL.

1. A Treatise on the Law of Libel and the Liberty of the Press; showing the Origin, Use and Abuse of the Law of Libel. With copious notes and references to Authorities in Great Britain and the United States; as applicable to Individuals and to Political and Ecclesiastical Bodies and Principles. By THOMAS COOPER, M.D., L.L D., and President of Columbia College in SouthCarolina. New-York: G. F. Hopkins & Co.

2. The People vs. Croswell. Johnson's Reports, vol. viii, p. 337.

THERE are few subjects more interesting, or more worthy of the attention of an enlightened community, than the control which governments, courts and ecclesiastical bodies do, or may rightfully, exercise over the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press. What are the privileges of the people in these particulars,-what sort of opinions they may promulgate through these channels, and how far they may express them with impunity, can never be matters of indifference in any country, and especially in any country professing to be free. All men are endowed with liberty of thought and liberty of action by their Creator; and liberty of thought is given, in order that, by its exercise, they may discover the truth,-the only law of action by which free moral agents are, or should be, governed. Liberty of thought is spiritual, intangible, a perfect right, something essential to and inseparable from the nature of man,—a divine endowment, which governments can neither give nor take away,--a right wholly inalienable, and never compromised or surrendered by any compact either express or im plied. Liberty of thought is the foundation of liberty of speech, also a divine gift, and of liberty of the press, which though not a divine gift, is yet, as far as the interests of truth, of justice, and of human happiness are concerned, a

divine discovery. What would liberty of thought be worth, how could it be manifested indeed that there was any such thing, and how could the designs of Providence be answered in giving man such a faculty, unless he had, at the same time, the power of expressing his thoughts, freely, for the benefit of society? Speech and language were given for no other ends. They were provided merely to afford scope to thought and to supply the means of its legitimate and proper expression.

The press is one of the instrumentalities, and a most important one, by means of which a thinking being, anxious to disseminate valuable information, is enabled to express, without control from governments or individuals, the discoveries and improvements he has made in art or science, the just conclusions to which he has arrived in philosophy, or the sound opinions he has formed on any subjects useful to society. Writing is another of these instrumentalities, and to these two,-writing and printing,-we are indebted for all the books and literature, and most of the just thinking, improvements in government, civilization and refinement of modern times. Whatever interferes with the just liberty of the pen and of the press in the hands, or under the control, of an enlightened moral agent, interferes unjustly with man's liberty of action, by taking from him the means most efficacious for the expression and promulgation of his thoughts, and thus perpetrates a crime against God, who has created man free to act, as well as free to think, in accordance with the laws of his being and of his well being; and a crime against society and free governments, who are interested that he should always continue to be so. Hence the constitution of the United States provides, that Congress shall pass no law abridging liberty of speech and of the press; and the constitutions of most, if not all, of the States of the Union recognize and solemnly declare the same to be among the most valuable and inviolable privileges of a free people. Thus speech and the press are, at one and the same time, both the exponents and the bulwarks of liberty, and where they are not free,-but subject to the absolute control of bad, despotic and irresponsible governments, corrupt judges or bigoted ecclesiastics, the people are no better than slaves, and are, in fact, subject to the worst kind of slavery, that of moral and mental bondage,

But, has the press no limitations? May all sorts of opinions and injurious reflections on the characters of individauls and the conduct of public functionaries be propagated through the press, without danger to the interests of society, and with perfect impunity to the individual who employs the press for such purposes? Is the press a wholly irresponsible power? Is it subject to no control from any quarter, nor under any circumstances? Is it above and wholly independent of the law? Not so. The liberty and power of the press are nothing more than the liberty and power of the moral agent who controls it. The limitations on man's liberty created by his finite nature, which renders it impossible for him to do all things, and by the laws of civil society, which restrict his power of action within certain limits, and punish his irregular action when he overleaps those bounds, are precisely the limitations which, under every government and among every people, are affixed to the liberty of the press. In the United States, where the people, civilly speaking, are the source of all power, the press is invested with immense influence; but this is, or should be, the influence of truth and justice; and for abuses of the press, its conductors are answerable to laws which the people have enacted for the general welfare. Such is the liberty of the press,-a regulated, wholesome liberty, hemmed in, like all the other rights which a man possesses, by just metes and boundaries, beyond which he cannot pass without danger to himself or others. In a word, man, as a member of civil society, has the right, and is at liberty, to employ the press under those limitations, and those only, which the laws of the land have affixed to its exercise. The law of liberty, even in America, is nothing more than the liberty of the law, and where laws are just and equitable, the highest degree of freedom known to our race consists in the power of obedience. Unjust governments have always restricted the liberty of the press; but where the people are free and enjoy a lawful and generous freedom, there the press is most free, most powerful and most beneficial in the influence it exerts upon society.

The Constitution of the United States, by prohibiting Congress from passing any law whatever abridging freedom of speech and of the press, evidently recognized a certain liberty of the press as already existing, which was limited by law, and which Congress was not permitted to

abridge further. It had reference to the liberty of the press as it existed in England previous to the organization of our government, and, as the policy of that country in respect to the press was extremely narrow and unjust, it is difficult to conceive how its freedom could be reduced within a narrower compass, and have left to the people any liberty at all in this respect.

The history of the law of libel in England, is the history of the strong contending with the weak,-of a powerful and supercilious government usurping the rights of the people, and suppressing discussion with a view to prevent its usurpations from being the subject of general censure and comment. The king of England can do no wrong. Parliament is omnipotent. The governnient never dies. It is a real self-subsisting power, controlling all the social relations of life; and the people have no rights and no civil position except what the government is pleased to concede to them. The law of libel forms part and parcel of the common law, but most of the doctrines respecting libel, which have prevailed in England for centuries, originated in the Star Chamber, and constitute a code of judge-enacted law, resting on no authority but the caprice of its authors. A judiciary wholly dependant on the government for its existence and support, will always be subservient to those in power. It will never tolerate the slightest reflection upon that sovereign authority, from which it receives all the emoluments of office and all the means of livelihood. Prerogative is stronger than privilege, and those who hold the reins of power in a subordinate department, will look more to the security of their position than to the interests of truth or justice. Hence every publication in England has been regarded as a libel, which has questioned, either directly or indirectly, the absolute perfection and immaculate purity of the British monarchy. Subjects are allowed to think what they please against the government, but to express their thoughts, to write or print them has been a crime of flagrant enormity, subjecting offenders to most exemplary punishment.

A libel in England, is "any publication that tends to provoke a breach of the peace;" and when it is considered how sensitive men are, and how numerous the causes which produce dissension and lead to turbulence, it is not surprising that offences of this kind should be very common and

give rise to multiplied prosecutions. But of all kinds of libels, political libels have been regarded most dangerous, have provoked most frequently the interference of courts of justice, and been followed by the most summary retribution; and that, too, upon the ground,-not that they tend to a breach of the peace, the sin of libels upon private individuals, but because censures passed upon persons occupying public stations, are apt to bring scandal on the government. Hence, publications tending to bring the measures of the government into contempt, whether deservedly or otherwise; against any officer of the government; against Parliament; against courts of justice, impugning their decisions; against persons in high stations generally; against magistrates of every description, whether living or dead; against the state, the laws or the constitution; against here. ditary right and against the revolution of 1688, have subjected their authors to prosecutions for libel. The liberty of the press in England, has been the liberty of profound silence and passive obedience, or the liberty of opening one's mouth and expressing one's thoughts freely, at the peril of the pillory, the loss of his ears or fine and imprisonment. The late Dr. Cooper, in his able work entitled the "Law of Libel and Liberty of the Press," has cited a variety of cases from the Reports, in which the spirit of English jurisprudence in reference to this branch of the law, and the moustrous tyranny and injustice of the British judges are strikingly exemplified:

"In 1633, Prynne wrote his Histriomastrix, a phillipic against stage plays and Sunday sports. In the accusation, it is stated, that their majesties sometimes were present at stage plays; and it was therefore a libel on them. Prynne was fined £10,000, branded in the forehead, condemned to perpetual imprisonment, slit in the nose, and had his ears cropped. The House of Commons, to be sure, many years afterwards, declared the sentence illegal. St. Trials, v. i., p. 418. Ib. 430, same year, Lord Balmerino, indicted for having mentioned, with all due humility, that his majesty had put notes or marks against the names of certain persons who voted against the act relating to church government, wilk is ane fearfu' thing, for ane subject to pry into the gesture of his sov'reign in his Supreme Court, and tending to diminish the glorious estimation and opinion of our royal person's equity and justice, in the hearts of our subjects.' This libel was the humble petition of divers nobility and commissioners in Parliament. Lord Balmerino was convicted, but pardoned. The Star Chamber was put down; but its spirit still ranged abroad like a roaring lion, seeking whom it might devour. In the trial of St.