date

1820 Octr. 13. Spanish liberticide measures
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.
Similar Items
  • Title: [1820. Octr. 13. Spanish liberticide measures]
    Description: 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.
  • Title: [1820. Octr. 12 Spanish liberticide measures]
    Description: 1820. Octr. 12 Spanish liberticide measures 2 10 §. 2. Press violation

    Reasons against libel law

    It is specified /specifically/ /specifically/ without being individually

    described, if for example the words be – he is a thief or he is a robber – this

    and nothing more. It is specifically and individually described, if the
  • Title: [1820. Octr. 12 Spanish liberticide measures]
    Description: 1820. Octr. 12 Spanish liberticide measures 13 §. 2 I. Press violation Reasons

    against libel laws

    Thus it is that by every endeavour on the part of a public functionary to

    destroy or narrow this liberty two things are made probable not to say certain:

    in his mind a consciousness of inaptitude on the part of himself or his

    associates in the system or both, and a desire to seek /derive/ such a

    gratification to himself from the /another’s/ sufferings of another: from the

    sufferings of an individual by whose exertions service has been done to the

    public /by whom the public has been served/: criminality and vindictiveness:

    criminality, or at the least inaptitude: and the severer the punishment, and

    taking all together the greater the force he employs or endeavours to employ for

    this purpose, the deeper he affords reason to conclude has been or is intended

    to be his guilt, or else the sharper his vindictiveness.