Imagens da página
PDF
ePub

in my opinion, in this manner: Before the art of printing was known in Europe, learning was confined to a very few; at that time the transcribers and copiers of books were a very confiderable body of men, and were under particular regulations by law. When printing was discovered, these restrictions fell of course, and then every man was at liberty to communicate, at an easy expence, his labours and thoughts on every subject to the whole world. This, my Lords, was found fo very conve nient, that thence arofe the words, The Liberty of the Prefs. That this is the natural original of these words, my Lords, will appear from confidering the nature of our laws, with regard to defamatory libels, before printing was difscovered, compared with what it is now. My Lords, before the difcovery of printing, very strong statutes were made against defamation, which very statutes are still in force; and no man, my Lords, will fhew me any one ftatute upon this head, that was in force before the discovery of printing, which has been fince re pealed. From this, my Lords, I think it evident, that by the expreffion, The Liberty of the Prefs, can never be understood any liberty which the prefs acquired, and which was unknown before the discovery of printing. This, I hope, your Lordthips will find a fair and a juft way of reafoning, and, indeed, the only way in which we can reafon on this fubject. If If any body, my Lords, is of opinion that authors acquired any new privileges or liberties when printing was discovered, he ought to prove, my Lords, either that the old ftatutes on that subject were repealed, or that new ones were made in its favour, which, I will venture to fay, no man can do. It is true, my Lords, that in fome reigns very great restraints have been laid on the prefs, and very great feverities inflicted on authors and printers for publishing that which would now pafs current. But this never proves, that the laws relating to defamation were bad ones; it only proves that they were abused by power. I am very fenfible, my Lords, of how much ufe the prefs was at the time of the revolution; but the authors who wrote at

that

that time on the fide of Liberty, advanced nothing that was not agreeable to the Conftitution; they were warranted by law for what they wrote, and they had the fense of the nation on their fide. Befides, my Lords, there is a great difference betwixt an author's writing on a speculative subject, on which he thinks he has fomething to communicate that may be of service to the world, and an author's falling foul on all mankind because they are not of his way of thinking. The authors on the fide of the Revolution, my Lords, communicated their fentiments with the greatest deference to the perfons and characters of their fuperiors, unmixed with personal calumnies, or virulent reflections. Therefore, my Lords, it is a groundless reflection and cry against the Government, when a libeller is punished, to compare the conduct of this Government to that before the Revolution, unless thofe gentlemen can prove, to the fatisfac tion of a Jury, that they write with as much caution, and with as much decency, as the writers who, in the reigns of King Charles the Second and King James the Second, wrote on the principles of Liberty.

Having faid thus much, my Lords, I cannot help taking notice of another very common mistake, with regard to the freedom which some gentlemen think themselves intitled to, in cenfuring the conduct of their superiors. My Lords, this is a freedom unknown to our Conftitution, and fubverfive of our statutes, because a great part of our laws are intended for the relief of any person who is injured by another. Any perfon, my Lords, who is injured by another, were this laft the greateft subject in the kingdom, has the Courts of Justice open for his relief, and he has a Jury who will do him juftice according to the nature of the cafe, and then the law is fatisfied. No man, my Lords, is at liberty, by our laws, to carry his resentment farther; because, if he carries it farther, he carries it beyond law. From this, my Lords, it is plain, that whoever attempts to attack any man's character, by writing or publishing defamatory libels, is guilty of a trefpafs, and can plead no mitiga

[ocr errors]

tion of his crime, either from the nature of our Constitution, or the tenor of our laws. My Lords, I am fenfible this doctrine founds odd at a time of day when the People, under the notion of liberty, are quite intoxicated with à fpirit of licentioufnefs.

Lord Chancellor, Feb. 5, 1739.

I think it my duty, Sir, to lay before the Houfe a few facts, which have occurred fince our laft meeting, because, in my humble opinion, (which I fhall always fubmit to this House) the rights of all the commons of England and the privileges of Parliament have, in my perfón, been highly violated; I fhall at prefent content myfelf with barely ftating the facts, and leave the mode of proceeding to the wifdom of the House.

On the 30th of April, in the morning, I was made a prifoner in my own house by fome of the King's meffengers. I demanded by what authority they had forced their way into my room, and was fhewn a warrant in which no person was named in particular, but generally the authors, printers, and publifhers, of a feditious and treasonable paper, entitled, The North Britain, No. 45. The meffengers infifted on my going before Lord Halifax, which I abfolutely refused, because the warrant was, I thought, illegal, and did not respect me. I applied, by my friends, to the Court of Common Pleas, for a habeas corpus, which was granted; but as the office was not then open, it could not inmediately iffue. I was afterwards carried, by violence, before the Earls of Egremont and Halifax, whom I informed of the orders given by the Court of Common Pleas for the habeas corpus; and I enlarged upon this fubject to Mr. Webb, the Solicitor of the Treasury. I was, however, hurried away to the Tower by another warrant, which declared me the author and publisher of a moft infamous and feditious libel, entitled, The North Britain, No. 45. The word treafonable was dropt, yet I was detained a clofe prifoner, and no

3

perfon

perfon was fuffered to come near me for almoft three days, although my council and several of my friends demanded admittance, in order to concert the means of recovering my liberty. My house was plundered, my bureaus broke open, by order of two of your members, Mr. Wood and Mr. Webb, and all my papers carried away. After fix days imprisonment I was discharged, by the unanimous judgement of the Court of Common Pleas, That the privilege of this Houfe extended to my cafe. Notwithstanding this folemn decifion of one of the Courts of Justice, a few days after I was ferved with a fubpoena upon an information exhibited against me in the King's Bench. I loft no time in confulting the best books, as well as the greatest living authorities; and from the trueft judgement I could form, I thought that the ferving me with a fubpoena was another violation of the privilege of Parliament, which I will neither defert nor betray, and therefore I have not yet entered

an appearance.

[ocr errors]

I now ftand in the judgement of the Houfe, fubmitting, with the utmost deference, the whole cafe to their justice and wifdom; and beg leave to add, that if, after this important bufinefs has in its full extent been maturely weighed, you shall be of opinion that I am entitled to privilege, I fhall then be not only ready, but eagerly defirous to wave that privilege, and to put myself upon a jury of my countryman.

Mr. Wilkes, Nov. 15, 1763..

I have endeavoured to form my judgement with regard to the motion for expelling an honourable member (Mr. Wilkes),. which was not unexpected, upon the fulleft and most impartial confideration; and having done fo, I do not think myself obliged to make the leaft apology whatsoever, for the opinion which I fhall deliver upon this fubject.

I should, indeed, have wifhed that I could with propriety have declined delivering my fentiments concerning it, because I am thoroughly fenfible, that whatever my opinion fhall be, it will be able to great mifconftructions and mifreprefentations, VOL. II.

N

both

both within these walls and without doors. If I give my vote for the motion as it was made to you, it will be faid that I do it from a cruel, unrelenting difpofition, to gratify a private and perfonal refentment for the abuse Mr. Wilkes has fo liberally thrown upon me, and for that purpose, under the mask of zeal for the cause of God and the King, to perfevere in loading an unhappy man, who, it has been faid in this House, has been already too much oppreffed by my means, or at least with my concurrence or it would, perhaps, be attributed, especially after the temperate conduct which I have endeavoured to hold during this feffion, to an abject flattery to power, with the mean paltry view of obtaining Court favour. On the other hand, if I give my vote against the expulfion of Mr. Wilkes, I fhall be charged with levity and inconfiftency, with changing my opinions as it may best suit my fituation, either in or out of office, with adopting new principles from new habitudes and connections, and with a factious defign of courting popularity and diftreffing all legal government, by supporting and protecting a man, whofe behaviour I had fo repeatedly and fo heavily cenfured. If I know my own failings, revenge and cruelty are among the vices to which I amn leaft inclined; and if I may truft to the reproaches thrown out againft me by my enemies, I have been often accused of obftinacy and inflexibility of temper, but feldom or never, I think, with being too much disposed to alter my opinion according to the will of others, or to fail along the tide of popular prejudice. I fhould flatter myself therefore, that the charge of facrificing principles to Court favour or popular applaufe could hot with juftice be applied to me; notwithstanding which I will again fully own, that I should have wifhed, for many reafons, not to have been under the neceffity of deciding upon this queftion, either one way or the other; but as it has been proposed to you, I think it would be a base and unworthy conduct meanly to hide my head, or to run away from the difficulty. On the contrary, it is the duty of every honeft man, if he is convinced that the judgement

[ocr errors]
« AnteriorContinuar »