date

1820. Octr. 13. Spanish liberticide measures
1820. Octr. 13. Spanish liberticide measures 5 §. 2. Press violation Reasons

against libel law

2. Prosecution if practicable /in these cases employable/ and commonly practised

/employed/ would not in any degree approaching to equality be effectual or

applied /employed/ in any thing like so small an expence. In any and every such

case, if punishment be the instrument employed, prosecution must precede it,

prosecution with its delay vexation and expence. Not to speak of private

business, from the interruption given to public business the mischief is

considerable considerable in the course of the year or term of years even where

the instances are few. How much more considerable if prosecution had place in

every instance where in any of the situations in question delinquency has /had/

place?

In the case where it is by the liberty of the press that the check to misrule is

applied the judicatory before which the matter is brought is the tribunal of

public opinion the tribunal of the moral or popular sanction. Expence none: pay

to actors in the drama /the dramatis personae/, prosecutors, witnesses, judges,

none: delay, of that factitious kind in the manufacture of which judicatories in

general have hitherto been so successfully industrious none: vexation, except to

the accused none: and to him the vexation /suffering from it/ rises in

proportion to delinquency and be it what it may, takes the place and operates in

lieu of, and spares /saves/ the expence of punishment.

In both cases the greatest multitude of appropriate facts and with it arguments

applying to them capable of being brought to view without the help of this

liberty is as nothing in comparison of what may be and naturally will be brought

to view under favour of and by this liberty.
Similar Items
  • Title: [1820. Octr. 13 Spanish liberticide measures]
    Description: 1820. Octr. 13 Spanish liberticide measures 4 §. 2. Press violation Reasons

    against libel law

    Any such liberty It may be said, and has been said is unnecessary. For that in

    the case of inaptitude through delinquency, the delinquency will, on the part of

    some portion of the body of public functionaries those who will be able willing

    and ready to perform their respective parts towards the opposing to the

    delinquency /repressive/ measures of repression, in the shape of punishment in

    so far as needful, and in all other needful shapes: and that as to inaptitude

    clear of delinquency, either it will not have place it will have place only for

    a short time, at the end of which it will in some way or other be removed.

    To this again the answers are {short} {plain} and conclusive.

    I. First as to inaptitude as evidenced by delinquency. 1. In the first place

    there can not under any Monarchy be any such necessary concurrence. In the next

    place, if there could be and were it could neither /could it/ be equally

    effectual nor could the remedy applied by it be applied at so cheap a rate.

    II. So likewise in the case of inaptitude clear of delinquency. 1. In the case of

    inaptitude as evidenced by delinquency. 1. In the case /situation/ of rulers in

    chief – rulers who see none above them in the scale of power, none capable of

    operating upon them by means of punishment or any other repressive instrument of

    repression the absurdity of any such expectation is palpable. A man will not

    concurr in imposing pain /evil/ /suffering/ in the shape of punishment or any

    other repressive shape on himself. The supposition is a self contradictory one.

    2. In the case /situation/ of any functionary subordinate to them, the case is

    still the same. If there is misrule it is by the will and for the benefit of the

    rulers in chief that it has place. If it be to their own prejudice /the

    prejudice of those same rulers/ that the transgression committed by the

    subordinate has been committed, yes in that case they will be ready enough to

    punish for it: but if it be not to their prejudice, if it be only to the

    prejudice of the people at large, they will not meddle /interfere/ with it: much

    less if they themselves be in any degree participators in the profit which in

    any shape is looked for from the offence.
  • Title: [1820 Octr. 13. Spanish liberticide measures]
    Description: 1820 Octr. 13. Spanish liberticide measures *5 §. 2 Press violation Reasons

    against libel law

    (a)? Consider on this occasion the two famous tragedies /massacres/ of these

    times: the Manchester massacre, and the Cadiz massacre.

    In England, not by law but against law the press possesses and has habitually

    possessed an imperfect and ever precarious liberty. In Spain, whatsoever liberty

    the press may be in possession of, the habit of making use of it and turning it

    to account has not been yet formed.

    In the case of the Manchester massacre committed by public functionaries on a

    peaceable and unarmed multitude composed of men women and children the

    particulars and thence the amount of the mischief has been pretty well brought

    to light: killed, | |; wounded or otherwise hurt, | | But for such liberty as

    the press has not yet been bereft of, not one of these facts nor thence of the

    salutary and urgent arguments grounded on them, would have been brought to

    light: for by the authors, approvers and rewarders of the butchery, every thing

    was done that could be done for suppressing the particulars of it.

    In the case of the Cadiz massacre, no facts brought to light but what it suited

    the designs of one man to bring to light: perhaps no individual or specific

    facts whatsoever. How this matter stands can not on my part in any instance be

    at this time be any thing more than matter of inference. If the procedure has

    been secret, as in general it is under Rome-bred and thence under Spanish law,

    {I regard it as matter of course that} relevant /appropriate/ facts in

    multitudes can not but have been buried in darkness, some by fear of evil, some

    by hope of good, some in consideration of good received, either in the shape of

    bribes, or in the way of corruption in some less palpable shape. Under the veil

    of secresy injustice in all these shapes may and should be regarded as matter of

    course: on the part of the Judge, no vehemence of asseveration, no excellence of

    character can suffice to render the opposite state of the case probable.
  • Title: [24 Jan y 1810 Parl y Reform]
    Description: 24 Jan y 1810

    Parl y Reform

    Ch. 9 Seat Gift

    '.3. Mischief to patron's mind

    1

    '.3. Mischief to the patron's mind

    Many words can not surely here be needful, to shew the immorality of the supposed mental mischief in the instance of this one of the dramatis personae here in question /character in our drama/, to shew that if in the instance of the presiding one it is ideal, in the instance of the present one it is still more manifestly so.

    The situation and course of action in which the patron places his dependent the incumbent is one in which there exists no moral wrong in which it is not in the nature of the case that the incumbent himself (who is the party chiefly benefited) should see any: still further then is it from being in the nature of the case that the patron should see any.