leave the rest to the judge; and that they have nothing to do with the word felonice in the indictment?

The next point is to consider it as a question of constitutional policy; that is, whether the decision of the question of libel ought to be left to the judges as a presumption of law, rather than to the jury as matter of popular judgment, as the malice in the case of murder; the felony in the case of stealing. If the intent and tendency are not matters within the province of popular judgment, but legal and technical conclusions, formed upon general principles of law, let us see what they are. Certainly they are most unfavourable, indeed totally adverse, to the constitution of this country.

Here we must have recourse to analogies; for we cannot argue on ruled cases one way or the other.

See the history. The old books, deficient in general in crown cases, furnish us with little on this 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 3d 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 misdemeanors. For the trial of misdemeanors 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 out-work 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 enquiry; 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 enquiry 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 enquire too much, and too irreverently, because they think their representatives do not enquire at all.

We have in a libel, Ist, The writing. 2d, The communication, called by the lawyers the publication. 3d, The application to persons and facts. 4th, The intent and tendency. 5th, The matter,-diminution 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. 2. 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 every thing, which it does not positively establish, and this might be inconvenient; or it may seem, vice versa, to establish every thing, 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 any thing 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 shrink from the rude touch of parliamentary remedy, have been the subject of not fewer than, I think, 43 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