date

1821 April 29 Needless continued
1821 April 29

Needless continued

Constitution

Penal Law

Under an absolute Monarchy, any discourse of a nature otherwise than agreeable to the Monarch, (or any of those by whom execution and effect is given to his will,) is, if uttered by word of mouth in the hearing of any other person, a seditious discourse: if committed to print or writing, a seditious libel: such of course is the character of every discourse by which intimation is given, that in this or that particular, still more if in general, the system pursued, or the conduct of those who act under it, might if different from what it is, be better than what it is -

Under a limited Monarchy the case, is in these respects the same,

Under a Representative Democracy suppose conspiracy not impossible - suppose it not groundless - still there could be no need of it. Under a Representative Democracy, individuals in any numbers, may in any place, at any times, meet and say and here /hear/ whatsoever, (whether in relation to the system pursued or in relation to the conduct of those who act under it), is agreeable to the respective speakers, to whatsoever degree it may be otherwise than agreeable to the hearers, or to their common rulers. Be the purpo/rt/se of what is thus said what it may, the speaking of it will not be seditious speaking: written or printed, unpublished or published, a paper in which it is contained, will not be a seditious libel. Suppose a proposition made for killing, or beating a Judge, a Governor, a President: for pulling down or plundering his house, a proposition to any such effect if followed by any correspondent endeavour will be an offence against person or property as the case may be and punishable as such: for a Judge, a Governor, a President is an individual: But in neither case would it be either true /lese/ Majesty humain[?] or /divine or human or/ so much as sedition: at any rate, if by the Legislature of any such state, the Judge, was suffered to punish it as such, it would be in humble imitation of an original, by the imitation of which on any one occasion, they ought to be covered with shame.
Similar Items
  • Title: [1821 April 29 Needless continued]
    Description: 1821 April 29

    Needless continued

    Constitution

    Penal Law

    Under Representative Democracy there is no such thing as a seditious libel, /-/ under the General Government of the Anglo American United States there is no such thing as a seditious libel. Charge the President of Congress, charge the Vice President, charge the Chief Justice with having taken a bribe - do this in print, circulate the print all over the United States no one of them will cause you to be punished as for a seditious libel, no one of them will have it in his power so to do: no information granted ex offices, without motion: no information granted on motion: no, nor so much as any indictment. Action civil i.e. non penal, yes, viz. as for defamation. Prove thereupon the imputation to be well grounded, in a man on whom it has been cast, /and he/ will be punished accordingly: tho' such is the effect of blind obsequiousness to a corrupt original, be the evidence ever so complete, it will have to be delivered over again in a needless and worse than useless prosecution, required by lawyercraft for the purpose. If you fail in the proof, you may be punished for the injury by the obligation of paying /being obliged to pay/ money on that account to the individual injured: and it is right you should be so if you had not before you a reasonable ground for believing the charge /imputation/ true; much more, if you are conscious of the falsity of it. In this there would be nothing but what is right: for tho' he is neither a vice-god, nor a Magnate the person in question is an individual, and an individual whom you have injured.
  • Title: [1821 April 29 Constitution Penal Law]
    Description: 1821 April 29

    Constitution Penal Law

    Needless Constituted

    Under Representative Democracy there is no such thing as a seditious

    libel,— under the General Government of the Anglo

    American United States there is no such thing as a seditious libel. Charge

    the President of Congress, charge the Vice President, charge the Chief

    Justice with having taken a bribe — do this in print, circulate

    the print all over the United States no one of them will cause you to be

    punished as for a seditious libel, no one of them will have it in his power

    so to do: for no such injury

    will any criminal prosecution lie: no information

    granted ex officio, without motion: no information

    granted a motion: no, nor so much as any indictment. Action civil i.e. non

    penal, yes, viz. as for defamation. Prove thereupon the imputation to be

    well-grounded, in a man on whom it has been cast, and he will be

    punished accordingly: tho' such is the effect of blind obsequiousness to

    a corrupt original, be the evidence ever so complete it will have to

    be delivered over again in a needless & worse than useless

    prosecution, required by lawyercraft for the purpose. If you fail in the

    proof, you may be punished for the injury by being obliged to pay

    money on that account to the individual

    injured: and it is right you should be so if you had not before you a

    reasonable ground for believing the imputation

    two; much more if you are conscious of the falsity of it.

    In this there would be nothing but what is right: for tho' he is neither a

    view-god, nor a Magnate. The person in question is an individual, and an

    individual whom you have injured.
  • Title: [[clx. 214] 1821. May 1. First]
    Description: [clx. 214]

    1821. May 1.

    First Lines

    Procedure.

    /Constitutional Procedure/

    Under an absolute Monarchy, so far as regards offences against Government, more particularly seditious speaking and seditious libelling, the laws being but so many instruments of hostility against the subject many, what little security they can have against the ruling one consists in, and is in proportion to the weakness of the laws: it is, therefore, for their interest - for their security - that the hand which cals itself the hand of justice should, in all such cases, be lame: as near immoveable as possible.

    So likewise in /under/ a limited monarchy, and for the same reasons.

    For the same reasons? yes: and for some additional ones.

    Under a limited Monarchy, rather than that the whole frame of government, subjective law adjective law, administration should not be weak in that part, it is for the interest - it is for the security - of the subject many, that it be weak throughout and in the whole. For as, on the one hand, if the whole frame of government possessed any such strength either as that which it has under a Representative Democracy, or even as that which it has under an absolute government, much less can /than/ compleat execution and effect given to these laws would suffice for converting the limitd monarchy into an absolute one, so, on the other hand, under a limited monarchy, the quantity of appropriate aptitude in all its shapes kept up on the part of the subject many by those discussions which, so ong as any limitation remains, can not but continue, afford, to whatsoever is salutary and wel applied in the power of the laws, a substitute such as can have no place in company with that prostration of will and understanding and will on which an absolute Monarchy depends for its continuance