thoughts on the present discontents-第21部分

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


head。　　As　to　the　crime；　in　the　very　early　Saxon　Law；　I　see　an
offence　of　this　species；　called　Folk…leasing；　made　a　capital
offence；　but　no　very　precise　definition　of　the　crime；　and　no　trial
at　all：　　see　the　statute　of　3rd　Edward　I。　cap。　34。　　The　law　of
libels　could　not　have　arrived　at　a　very　early　period　in　this
country。　　It　is　no　wonder　that　we　find　no　vestige　of　any
constitution　from　authority；　or　of　any　deductions　from　legal　science
in　our　old　books　and　records　upon　that　subject。　　The　statute　of
scandalum　magnatum　is　the　oldest　that　I　know；　and　this　goes　but　a
little　way　in　this　sort　of　learning。　　Libelling　is　not　the　crime　of
an　illiterate　people。　　When　they　were　thought　no　mean　clerks　who
could　read　and　write；　when　he　who　could　read　and　write　was
presumptively　a　person　in　holy　orders；　libels　could　not　be　general
or　dangerous；　and　scandals　merely　oral　could　spread　little；　and　must
perish　soon。　　It　is　writing；　it　is　printing　more　emphatically；　that
imps　calumny　with　those　eagle　wings；　on　which；　as　the　poet　says；
〃immortal　slanders　fly。〃　　By　the　press　they　spread；　they　last；　they
leave　the　sting　in　the　wound。　　Printing　was　not　known　in　England
much　earlier　than　the　reign　of　Henry　VII。；　and　in　the　third　year　of
that　reign　the　Court　of　Star　Chamber　was　established。　　The　press　and
its　enemy　are　nearly　coeval。　　As　no　positive　law　against　libels
existed；　they　fell　under　the　indefinite　class　of　misdemeanours。　　For
the　trial　of　misdemeanours　that　court　was　instituted；　their　tendency
to　produce　riots　and　disorders　was　a　main　part　of　the　charge；　and
was　laid；　in　order　to　give　the　court　jurisdiction　chiefly　against
libels。　　The　offence　was　new。　　Learning　of　their　own　upon　the
subject　they　had　none；　and　they　were　obliged　to　resort　to　the　only
emporium　where　it　was　to　be　had；　the　Roman　Law。　　After　the　Star
Chamber　was　abolished　in　the　10th　of　Charles　I。　its　authority　indeed
ceased；　but　its　maxims　subsisted　and　survived　it。　　The　spirit　of　the
Star　Chamber　has　transmigrated　and　lived　again；　and　Westminster　Hall
was　obliged　to　borrow　from　the　Star　Chamber；　for　the　same　reasons　as
the　Star　Chamber　had　borrowed　from　the　Roman　Forum；　because　they　had
no　law；　statute；　or　tradition　of　their　own。　　Thus　the　Roman　Law　took
possession　of　our　courts；　I　mean　its　doctrine；　not　its　sanctions；
the　severity　of　capital　punishment　was　omitted；　all　the　rest
remained。　　The　grounds　of　these　laws　are　just　and　equitable。
Undoubtedly　the　good　fame　of　every　man　ought　to　be　under　the
protection　of　the　laws　as　well　as　his　life；　and　liberty；　and
property。　　Good　fame　is　an　outwork；　that　defends　them　all；　and
renders　them　all　valuable。　　The　law　forbids　you　to　revenge；　when　it
ties　up　the　hands　of　some；　it　ought　to　restrain　the　tongues　of
others。　　The　good　fame　of　government　is　the　same；　it　ought　not　to　be
traduced。　　This　is　necessary　in　all　government；　and　if　opinion　be
support；　what　takes　away　this　destroys　that　support；　but　the　liberty
of　the　press　is　necessary　to　this　government。

The　wisdom；　however；　of　government　is　of　more　importance　than　the
laws。　　I　should　study　the　temper　of　the　people　before　I　ventured　on
actions　of　this　kind。　　I　would　consider　the　whole　of　the　prosecution
of　a　libel　of　such　importance　as　Junius；　as　one　piece；　as　one
consistent　plan　of　operations；　and　I　would　contrive　it　so　that；　if　I
were　defeated；　I　should　not　be　disgraced；　that　even　my　victory
should　not　be　more　ignominious　than　my　defeat；　I　would　so　manage；
that　the　lowest　in　the　predicament　of　guilt　should　not　be　the　only
one　in　punishment。　　I　would　not　inform　against　the　mere　vender　of　a
collection　of　pamphlets。　　I　would　not　put　him　to　trial　first；　if　I
could　possibly　avoid　it。　　I　would　rather　stand　the　consequences　of
my　first　error；　than　carry　it　to　a　judgment　that　must　disgrace　my
prosecution；　or　the　court。　　We　ought　to　examine　these　things　in　a
manner　which　becomes　ourselves；　and　becomes　the　object　of　the
inquiry；　not　to　examine　into　the　most　important　consideration　which
can　come　before　us；　with　minds　heated　with　prejudice　and　filled　with
passions；　with　vain　popular　opinions　and　humours；　and　when　we
propose　to　examine　into　the　justice　of　others；　to　be　unjust
ourselves。

An　inquiry　is　wished；　as　the　most　effectual　way　of　putting　an　end　to
the　clamours　and　libels；　which　are　the　disorder　and　disgrace　of　the
times。　　For　people　remain　quiet；　they　sleep　secure；　when　they
imagine　that　the　vigilant　eye　of　a　censorial　magistrate　watches　over
all　the　proceedings　of　judicature；　and　that　the　sacred　fire　of　an
eternal　constitutional　jealousy；　which　is　the　guardian　of　liberty；
law；　and　justice；　is　alive　night　and　day；　and　burning　in　this　house。
But　when　the　magistrate　gives　up　his　office　and　his　duty；　the　people
assume　it；　and　they　inquire　too　much；　and　too　irreverently；　because
they　think　their　representatives　do　not　inquire　at　all。

We　have　in　a　libel；　1st。　　The　writing。　　2nd。　　The　communication；
called　by　the　lawyers　the　publication。　　3rd。　　The　application　to
persons　and　facts。　　4th。　　The　intent　and　tendency。　　5th。　　The
matterdiminution　of　fame。　　The　law　presumptions　on　all　these　are
in　the　communication。　　No　intent　can；　make　a　defamatory　publication
good；　nothing　can　make　it　have　a　good　tendency；　truth　is　not
pleadable。　　Taken　juridically；　the　foundation　of　these　law
presumptions　is　not　unjust；　taken　constitutionally；　they　are
ruinous；　and　tend　to　the　total　suppression　of　all　publication。　　If
juries　are　confined　to　the　fact；　no　writing　which　censures；　however
justly；　or　however　temperately；　the　conduct　of　administration；　can
be　unpunished。　　Therefore；　if　the　intent　and　tendency　be　left　to　the
judge；　as　legal　conclusions　growing　from　the　fact；　you　may　depend
upon　it　you　can　have　no　public　discussion　of　a　public　measure；　which
is　a　point　which　even　those　who　are　most　offended　with　the
licentiousness　of　the　press　（and　it　is　very　exorbitant；　very
provoking）　will　hardly　contend　for。

So　far　as　to　the　first　opinion；　that　the　doctrine　is　right　and　needs
no　alteration。　2nd。　　The　next　is；　that　it　is　wrong；　but　that　we　are
not　in　a　condition　to　help　it。　　I　admit；　it　is　true；　that　there　are
cases　of　a　nature　so　delicate　and　complicated；　that　an　Act　of
Parliament　on　the　subject　may　become　a　matter　of　great　difficulty。
It　sometimes　cannot　define　with　exactness；　because　the　subject…
matter　will　not　bear　an　exact　definition。　　It　may　seem　to　take　away
everything　which　it　does　not　positively　establish；　and　this　might　be
inconvenient；　or　it　may　seem　vice　versa　to　establish　everything
which　it　does　not　expressly　take　away。　　It　may　be　more　advisable　to
leave　such　matters　to　the　enlightened　discretion　of　a　judge；　awed　by
a　censorial　House　of　Commons。　　But　then　it　rests　upon　those　who
object　to　a　legislative　interposition　to　prove　these　inconveniences
in　the　particular　case　before　them。　　For　it　would　be　a　most
dangerous；　as　it　is　a　most　idle　and　most　groundless；　conceit　to
assume　as　a　general　principle；　that　the　rights　and　liberties　of　the
subject　are　impaired　by　the　care　and　attention　of　the　legislature　to
secure　them。　　If　so；　very　ill　would　the　purchase　of　Magna　Charta
have　merited　the　deluge　of　blood；　which　was　shed　in　order　to　have
the　body　of　English　privileges　defined　by　a　positive　written　law。
This　charter；　the　inestimable　monument　of　English　freedom；　so　long
the　boast　and　glory　of　this　nation；　would　have　been　at　once　an
instrument　of　our　servitude；　and　a　monument　of　our　folly；　if　this
principle　were　true。　　The　thirty　four　confirmations　would　have　been
only　so　many　repetitions　of　their　absurdity；　so　many　new　links　in
the　chain；　and　so　many　invalidations　of　their　right。

You　cannot　open　your　statute　book　without　seeing　positive　provisions
relative　to　every　right　of　the　subject。　　This　business　of　juries　is
the　subject　of　not　fewer　than　a　dozen。　　To　suppose　that　juries　are
something　innate　in　the　Constitution　of　Great　Britain；　that　they
have　jumped；　like　Minerva；　out　of　the　head　of　Jove　in　complete
armour；　is　a　weak　fancy；　supported　neither　by　precedent　nor　by
reason。　　Whatever　is　most　ancient　and　venerable　in　our　Constitution；
royal　prerogative；　privileges　of　parliament；　rights　of　elections；
authority　of　courts；　juries；　must　have　been　modelled　according　to
the　occasion。　　I　spare　your　patience；　and　I　pay　a　compliment　to　your
understanding；　in　not　attempting　to　prove　that　anything　so　elaborate
and　artificial　as　a　jury　was　not　the　work　of　chance；　but　a　matter　of
institution；　brought　to　its　present　state　by　the　joint　efforts　of
legislative　authority　and　juridical　prudence。　　It　need　not　be
ashamed　of　being　（what　in　many　parts　of　it　at　least　it　is）　the
offspring　of　an　Act　of　Parliament；　unless　it　is　a　shame　for　our　laws
to　be　the　results　of　our　legislature。　　Juries；　which　sensitively
shrank　from　the　rude　touch　of　parliamentary　remedy；　have　been　the
subject　of　not　fewer　than；　I　think；　forty…three　Acts　of　Parliament；
in　which　they　have　been　changed　with　all　the　authority　of　a　creator
over　its　creature；　from　Magna　Charta　to　the　great　alterations　which
were　made　in　the　29th　of　George　II。

To　talk　of　this　matter　in　any　other　way　is　to　turn　a　rational
principle　into　an　idle　and　vulgar　superstition；　like　the　antiquary；
Dr。　Woodward；　who　trembled　to　have　his　shield　scoured；　for　fear　it
should　be　discovered　to　be　no　better　than　an　old　pot…lid。　　This
species　of　tenderness　to　a　jury　puts　me　in　mind　of　a　gentleman　of
good　condition；　who　had　been　reduced　to　great　poverty　and　distress；
application　was　made　to　some　rich　fellows　in　his　neighbourhood　to
give　him　some　assistance；　but　they　begged　to　be　excused　for　fear　of
affronting　a　person　of　his　high　birth；　and　so　the　poor　gentleman　was
left　to　starve　out　of　pure　respect　to　the　antiquity　of　his　family。
From　this　principle　has　risen　an　opinion　that　I　find　current　amongst
gentlemen；　that　this　distemper　ought　to　be　left　to　cure　itself；　that
the　judges　having　been　well　exposed；　and　something　terrified　on
account　of　these　clamours；　will　entirely　change；　if　not　very　much
relax　from　their　rigour；　if　the　present　race　should　not　change；　that
the　chances　of　succession　may　put　other　more　constitutional　judges
in　their　place；　lastly；　if　neither　sh