Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

"To this disavowal, which every class of "our readers must have seen with pleasure, "we think ourselves bound to add the posi

opinions, to ascertain with precision the state of the moon. But, Sir, this plea of subsequent information will not, I am sorry to say it, save your credit. For, in both these articles, you give an opinion, nay, you make assertions, not upon hearsay, not upon extraneous information, but (mark it well) upon the internal evidence of the work in question. In the first article you say that it is evident that the duke dictated the work, and that it must have had the king's concurrence. That is to say, the work was of that nature and was so written, that the duke and the king must necessarily be at the bottom of it. Now, then, how do you characterize this same work in your second article? Well may you turn your eyes away from the quotation that you perceive coming! How, I say, do you characterize the work which you had, but a few days before, ascribed to the Duke of York and the king? Why, by asserting that it contains " gross and absurd falsehoods in

tive contradiction of all the material facts stated in this publication. The gross and "absurd falsehoods which it contains in every page, could not possibly proceed "from any man having any knowledge of what really has passed respecting the Duke of York in the last two years. The private conversations and political intrigues which it affects to detail, are throughout complete fabrications and gross impo sitions on the public credulity. But we wish particularly to assure the public, that there is not the least foundation for the assertion, that any such inquiry, as is therein mentioned, into the conduct of his royal highness, has been at any time carried on, at the instigation of one par ty, or defeated by the protection (as it is most improperly termed) of the other-a statement which both, we are sure, will be equally ready to deny, and the contradiction of which is due in justice to his royal highness. As warm and zealously advocates for a free press, we lament to see it abused for the circulation of such impostures, and we think it our first duty to expose and detect them.".

[ocr errors]

This all very fine, Sir; but, if it was our first duty to expose and detect this imsture, how came you to delay the perormance of that duty so long? Nay, how ime you to give countenance to that imposre, by stating to your readers, that the ok was evidently written under the eye of eduke, and must have had the approba0 of the king? Be so good as to answer It On! you were deceived yourself; a were amongst those whose credulity is imposed upon by this imposture; and, ing now undeceived, you wish to undeve your readers. But, Sir, whence have a drawn the information, which has enled you to give a positive contradiction of all the material facts stated in the pub. lication," and to " assure the public that there is not the least foundation for the statement about an inquiry into the conduct of bis royal highness?" Whence e you drawn’this information? Through at channel has this illuminating influence ken in opon you? And how came you, great oracle of the party to whom you ertain, to have been, until this happy quent, lost in darkness? Truly, if such the character of your mind; if you are ject to such fits of obscurity of intellect, will be well for your readers,' ere they ce reliance upon your statements and

every page." That is to say, taking both your articles together, the duke has evidentdictated and the king must have approved of, a work containing "gross and absurd "falsehoods in every page." Is this, Sir, a specimen of that respect, which you are pleased to profess towards the royal family? --To the assertion, that the falsehoods are gross and absurd you do, indeed, add, that

[ocr errors]

they cannot possibly proceed from any "man having any knowledge of what really "has passed respecting the Duke of York ;' and, as the king and the duke must have known what did pass, you thus ward off the charge of imputing the gross and absurd falsehoods to them. But, there is still a difficulty, which you do not seem to have perceived when the loyal fit was upon you; and that is, that the falsehoods, if gross and absurd, must have so appeared to you when you imputed the work to the Duke and the King, or, that you are a person not capable of perceiving falsehoods, however gross and absurd, until they are pointed out to you. You now tell us, that the falsehoods, in every page, are so gross and absurd, that they could not possibly have proceeded from any man havi any knowledge of what has really passed respecting the Duke of York. There is an impossibility in the thing. You want no reasoning or facts to convince you of it. You at once see that it must be so. Yet, only about ten days before, you told me and all the rest of your ardent admirers, that these things, which you now call

gros-fand absurd falsehoods" had evidently been written under the eye of the duke, had been published under bis sanction, and

that the work must have had the concurrence of the king! Who is to believe what you say in future? What reliance is to be placed upon your sense or your sincerity? -You tell us, in conclusion, that there is no foundation whatever for the assertion, that any such inquiry as that mentioned in the pamphlet, into the conduct of the duke has been, at any time, carried on, at the instigation of one party, or defeated by the protection of the other; and you add, that you are sure, that both parties will be equally ready to "contradict the statement of the wiiter. It is possible that you may have received such assurances; it is possible that yo may have been ordered to communicate in assotances to the world; but, how are bekeve you? How are we to know,

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

by wl not at some time hence, fiatwhat you now say, and call it a ad absurd falsehood? The truth is, t you, very unwisely, imputed the pamphlet to the duke and the king; you found yourself embarrassed by this hasty imputation; your party have, I dare say, censored your want of discretion; and, in this second article, we see you endeavouring to extricate yourself, at the expence of your understanding or your sincerity.

SIR RICHARD PHILLIPS.When, upon a former occasion, I had to notice the conduct of this gentleman, as velating to the action for a libel, brought by Sir JOHN CARR, Knight, against Messrs. Hood and Sharpe, for publishing a criticism upon a work of Sir John's, I had not been informed of many circumstances, which have since come to my knowledge, and which do certainly exhibit Sir Richard in quite another light than that of a man, who would wish to see the principles of freedom cherished in England. It appears, from. the report of the Trial, now published at full, and some parts of which report I shall more fully notice bereafter, that Sir Richard was, if not an adviser, at least an approver of the prosecu tion, a fact, which, had it not been proved in so clear a way, I could not have believed. What! one bookseller approve of the prosecution, or, rather the persecution of another, and that, too, for publishing a criticism upon a work of which he himselt was become the proprietor! A near relation of his has, it seems, prosecuted the editors of a catch-penny work called "THE SATIRIST," for a criticism upon a child's book, which those editors represented as having an immoral tendency; and that six pence damages were obtained. It is further asserted in print, that Sir Richard himself prefered a bill of indictment against the same Satirists

[ocr errors]

for something said by them of him, and that the bill was thrown out. The consequence of all this has been a pretty general feeling of resentment against him, in all those who have any thing to do with the press, and that feeling, so far from having been awe into silence by his endeavours for that purpose, has shewn itself in literary attacks from various quarters and of various descriptions, from a two-shilling-andsix-penny pamphlet down to a half-penny ballad. His attention is now drawn from the odious caricature of Sir John Carr to the many, wherein he himself cuts the princi pal figure. He cannot take up a newspaper without seeing some paragraph or advertisement inviting the reader to a laugh at his,expence. The very walls in the streets he sees covered with notifications as to where and when the public may be entertained in the same agrecable way. One author has employed his pen in writing a burlesque ac- 4 count of him, entitled, Memoirs of the a public and private Life of Sir Richard "Phillips, Knight: By a Citizen of Lon"don and Assistants." His old friends the Satirists, who, probably, wrote the book for the purpose, have taken it up as a subject to review; have chosen to consider it as a serious statement; and have thus niade it a two-edged instrument for the purpose of goading him and his family, no part of whom, whether wife or child, do they spare, though it is not at all improbable, that some of them may have often satisfied their hunger at his table They go so far as to say. that he has been in the tabit of attaching an alius" to his name, and that he "once went by the name of Philip "Richards." The pretended biographer, after relating, that Sir Richard, when be lived at Leicester in the cauacity of a hosier, had his premises destroyed by fire, adds, that he had insured his property not many months before, and that, when every one supposed him ruined, re rose like a phœnix from his ashes." Upon this the Satirists say, by way of note, that in 1795, Sir Richard received £1.500 from the Phoenix fire-office; and they then proceed to complain of the biographer for being silent open "the supposed cause of the conflagration;" after which they add: " I perhaps our bio

66

[ocr errors]

66

grapher never heard, that his hero, soon "after the accident, wrote to a friend, stating to this effect: that, although "it was very true the fire office had amply

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

remunerated him for his losses, yet, that "it was such a glorious opportunity for "taking advantage of the public feelings. "who did not know his premises had been

[ocr errors]

insured, that he intreated him instantly "to promote a subscription in his favour; and yet we have been told, that such a letter "was written, and is not yet destroyed." As to what these writers say about Lady PhilIps, of whom they would evidently have uid harm if they could; about Sir Richard's ranity, and other foibles; about his squabbles with authors: these are not worth notice; but, the charges above made, with respect to the name and the fire, as I dare say they can, so perhaps they may, receive a serious contradiction from, and in the same of, the person against whom they are brought. But, above all things, I would vise Sir Richard not again to resort to the law. He has quite enough of means

his own hands wherewith to expose my falsehoods that have been, or may be published against him; and, he may fest assured, that, whatever anger he nay feel against the promulgators of thuse falsehoods, the most effectual way f inflicting punishment on them, is, exSept in very particular cases, to leave them that avenging hunger and thirst, to satisfy Le cravings of which they have recourse (for be want of talents whereby to attract atten1) to any means, however base, of obBing notoriety. When one contemplates be mean trick to which these men have rered, in writing a book for the purpose of aving it to review, and making the book and he review a puff for each other; and espeaily when one sees them unnecessarily inroducing the wife of the person whom they tre assaulting, and who is, in no way whatver, concerned in the transactions of which hey complain; when one sees them resort o means of annoyance so very low, it may vell be a question with Sir Richard wheher he ought to condescend to contradict ny of their assertions; for, it must be evilent to every man of sense, into whose ands their work may chance to fall, that here is no falsehood at which they will stick. These men have no principle. They hate ot any vanity that Sir Richard may have. They hate him because he has a dinner and hoes, they having neither. They are said o be six or eight authors, whom he has been bliged to discharge for stupidity, a statement strongly corroborated by the superaundance of malice and the plentiful lack of lent, visible in the pretended biographer nd in the reviewers of his performance. What, in the name of common sense, had ir Richard to do with prosecutions of liteary vetmin like these, who write by the ot, who come to the pay-table of a Saturay night, like weavers or tinkers; whose

master must long ago have discharged them had not Sir Richard indiscreetly furnished their collection of trash with an interesting topic; and to whom, in all human probability, he would, ere his Shrievalty had been at an end, have had to dole out their daily allowance of water and bread. The generality of readers have not the most distant idea what miserable creatures those are, who are employed to work upon publications of this sort. Their names are cautionsly. disguised, and that for more reasons than one. Their retreats are more secret, and far more filthy, than those of the fox or the polecat. I would bet the worth of their work, that all the clothes upon all their backs would not sell for fifty shillings. This is precisely that sort of writers, whom Peter Pindar describes as being to be bribed with "buckets of broth and pounds of bullock's "liver." And yet, by creatures like these has Sir Richard Phillips been goaded even to the point of appealing to the law! This is.. what I dislike. Had he resorted to the horse-whip, the pump, or the horse-pond, why, I should have said, that it was foolish, to be sure, but that men cannot always command their passion. But, to appeal to the law; to do that which might keep in countenance the fools and rogacs, who, when properly spoken of, charge the speaker with a crime; to join the band who walk withont being spit upon, merely because truth is a libel; to attack that press which he, as well as any man, knows to be at its last gasp; to avail himself of his elevation to mount his brethren with lawyers' spurs.

This is what

I cannot forgive, and it is what he will repent of to the end of his life.—The Trial, in the case of Carr against Messrs. Hood and Sharpe, is one of the most important, nay the most important, that has taken place in my memory, and I am glad to see that it is fully and ably reported. According to the doctrine here laid down, both by the Chief Justice and the Attorney General, one man may, not only innocently, but laudally, ridicule the person and the talents of another. Not only freely examine them and criuc se them, but ridicule them. The whole of the Trial is important. I do not mean as an exposure of Carr and Sir Richard Phillips, but as containing the principles of the Judges and the Attorney General respecting libels; and it will be matter of wonder with me, if the Booksellers do not form A FUND for the circulation of it all over the kingdom. An edition might be printed for three pence each; each bookseller might take a number proportioned to the extent of his business; sonic copies, or one at least, might be put

into every parcel sent off from every shop; and thus, in the course of a year, every man who can read would have read it. This is no Loose essay upon the libel-law, It is the practice of the law. It is what the Attorney General and the Chief Justice have said and what they have laid down as law. Towards a fund for this purpose I shall be very happy to contribute my share; for I am cer tain that there has not, for years, any publication appeared calculated to do so much good. To fall upon a man already down, or to join in a general outery, is not my practice; nor have I any desire, in what I recommend, to annoy Sir Richard Phillips. I think it of great public consequence, that this Trial should be universally read. As I observed before, the action, out of which this trial grew, was founded upon the new principle, namely, that WHATEVER

HURTS

A MAN'S FEELINGS is to be considered as hibellous. The trial has completely set this principle aside; and, in fact, we are much obliged to Sir John Carr for having put the principle to the test. Until Sir John did this, there was no man who could tell whether he dared criticise the works of any, attthor. Indeed, according to the principle laid down, and acted upon, he did not dare do it, without running a risk of punishment. Good God! What would have been said by POPE and SWIFT, if any one had said to them: "It is wel! for you, "that you live in this age; for, in that "which will succeed, to ridicule a fool or

[ocr errors][merged small]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

"

men, that would not, to a certainty, shorten your lives, and, perhaps, your ears, "before you died.' What would Gay have said, had he been told, that his Fables, in the next age, would have subjected him to ear-cropping? Yet, the nation was as well governed then, as it is now, and, as to matters of literature, it was far greater than it now is. Were a man to write now as Pope and Swift wrote, he would have the full cry of Bond Street and St James's against him, He would be called ruffian and assassin. He would be accused of coarseness, grossness, personality. would be called an enemy to politeness, taste, refinement, and human happiness. I have often wondered, that some of the descendants of the rogues and fools whom they lashed, have not prosecuted the re printers and the sellers of their admirable satires, which, were they written in the

He

So.

present day, would be deemed infamous libels. They had no idea that to write and publish truth was a crime. The whole tenor of their works proves, that, so long as they confined themselves to the stating of what was true, they entertained no appre bensions as to the consequences. Upon the topics connected with royalty, too, they were no more squeamish than upon others. They were afraid of no constructive libels; nor, if they chose to express their disap probation of the conduct of kings and princes, did they fear the accusation of disloyalty. Why, if either of them, had written, in the present day, what both wrote at the beginning of the last century, he would long ago have been transported, under that act of parliament, for which we have to thank, principally, Pitt and Lord Grenville. Yet, as I observed before, the times they lived and wrote in were very glorious times t for England; such times as England has not since seen; times in which she shone more, t both in arms and in letters, than she ever did before, and than she is likely to do. again.The rogues and fools in public life have powerful motives for cramping the press, and all the rogues and fools in private life are naturally of their party. It must be Vice and folly, of whatever descrip tion, hate the light. Publicity is their natural enemy. Public prosecutions lead to private prosecutions; and why not? If s man is to be punished for exposing the vices or follies of a person whom the public employs, why should not the exposer of a privale person be punished? It is detestable to tell us, that regular government cannot be supported without this sort of prosecutions. To tell us, that a government cannot subsist without laws to punish the publication of truth, is, in fact, to tell us, that that government subsists by falsehood and fraud.- Besides, if a government cannot subsist without such prosecutions, it never can long subsist with them, unless it becomes a complete despotism, which is a state of constant warfare between the government and the people, and which, as we have recently seen in many instances, will subsist no longer than the people are without an opportunity of casting off its autho rity. If the government subsist with the wishes of the people, what need has it of prosecutions for any animadversions upon its conduct? And, of what use are the prosecutions? Suppose, for instance, some one accuse the government of tyrannical conduct. If his assertion be unsupported by proof, none but the very ignorant part of the nation will believe him; and, even an

their minds, he will produce no lasting impression. If he speak truth, it is not only proper that he should speak freely and without danger; but, the prosecution of him, in that case, and by a form of process which does not admit of his pleading the truth in his defence, must have, as to the government, an effect ten thousand times worse than if he had not been prosecuted; such a prosecution proving, not that the government was innocent of the charge, but, tending to prove that it was guilty, and that the person prosecuted has been the victim of vindictive guilt. And, in cases, where his assertions are void of proof; assertions which hardly any one will believe; such assertions gain credit from the mere circumstance of their author becoming an object of prosecution. Nothing can, by what is called a criminal prosecution, be obtained favourable to the reputation of the prosecuting party. His innocence cannot be proved. The form of proceeding, according to the present practice, does not admit of it. What does he get, then? A glutting of his vengeance, a gratification of his vindictive feelings, and the hope of being able to prevent future detection and exposure. But, those who, perhaps, only despised him before, will now hate him; and this hatred, justly sticking to him through life, will amply supply the place of future exposures. His escaping Cepsure will ever after be attributed to the dread of punishment in those who are able and willing to censure hinr. Thus, he will always be regarded as guilty, even to a degree, perhaps, beyond the truth; and every just man will see, with pleasure, the hour of his misfortune and destruction. It is now rather more than a year ago, since a gentleman, who had been most shamefully misrepresented and belied in the newspapers, and who had, indeed, been distinctly accused of very heinous offences, wrote to explanation of the circumstances of the case, and intimated, in conclusion, his intention of appealing to the law. I participated in his indignation against the publishers; but, conjured him not to appeal to the law; because, now, or in a short time, the whole nation would be convinced of the falsehood of what had been said against him, whereas, if he prosecuted, the whole nation would have doubts, at least, upon the subject. He followed my advice. He suffered the web of falsehood to be spun out, and he has found, that not a human creature in England believes one of them. It is in reason that it should be thos. Truth, give it fair play, will always triumph over falsehood. Pit them against one another, giving them

me au

1

both the free scope of the press, and there is no fear but the former will prevail. Every man does, every man must, know this; and, as every man is quite at liberty to answer those who attack him in print, and as every man has the ability to state plain facts in his defence, his appealing to the law always is, and always must be, a circumstance conveying suspicion, that he wants truth wherewith to repel the attack.- -As to ridicule, good lord, what would DRYDEN, POPE, and SWIFT have said, had they been told, that, in their country, it would be. come a crime to wound men's feelings by holding them up to ridicule! Ridicule is a thing that will not attach where it ought not, I defy Mr. Gillray to turn Lord Nelson's skill and courage into ridicule. You may attempt to ridicule any thing. This master of the art has tried his talents upon Sir Francis Burdett and his Westminster procession; but, if he would make a candid confession, he would tell us, that that was amongst the most unsuccessful of his efforts; he would tell us, that not a soul, except, perhaps, Mr. Baldwin, to whose name the folks at Whitehall prefix the infantine appellation of. Billy, ever thought this piece worth carrying home. There must be the ingredients of ridicule in the thing ridiculed, without which, to attempt to ridicule it, is like attempting to strike fire out of clay. Well, then, ridicule is, in all cases, not only innocent, bút laudable; because, that which is ridiculous ought to be ridiculed. What must the world think of the man, or set of men, who can come into a court of justice and demand reparation, or vengeance, for having been laughed at? Who, like CALIBAN, can come and say: "Mark how he mocks me; "I pray thee, my lord, bite him to death?" It is, and always has been, I suppose, the fashion of babies to run to their parents with complaints of being laughed at; but, for grown up men to do this; for knights and other great folks to fall into the practice; for courts of law and justice to be made the instruments of their childish resentment: this, were it not but too true, would be ridiculous indeed. What is that reputation? What can that reputation be worth? Whose care, or protection, can it'merit, if it be not sufficient to stand the test of ridicule ?. An indictment! An indictment preferred against a book-maker or a bookseller; an indictment against the press by one who had so long thriven by the press, and who now had so much of that press at his command, together with abundance of talents to make use of it! Of a fool's wrath the world has long been taught to beware; but, whe

« AnteriorContinuar »