indeed, are writings that tend to the destruction of “the monarchical branch of the Constitution;” and, how it happens that they have never been noticed, I must leave the reader to find out.
Oh! the sad rogues! They would persuade us, that they can buy, actually deal for, cheapen, and buy, for a sum of money, to go into the pocket of some woman, those very salaries which we pay for the doing of the nation’s business! If this is not striking at “social order” and “regular government,” I should be glad to know what is.
Mr. Perceval, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said, as will be seen by referring to the debate, that “it was not for him to tell the House, that, in this great capital, it might happen that foolish persons were frequently deceived by advertisements in the public papers, announcing the disposal of official patronage; and, perhaps, it has, occasionally, TURNED OUT, that the very persons, who were originally DECEIVED by these advertisements to make applications, did ultimately obtain the very appointments for which they had endeavoured to negotiate.”
Eh? . . . . How’s that? . . . . Yes! I see it now; I see it now, as clear as daylight. Aye, aye; that is plain enough. It is just as Mr. Perceval said. Foolish people, seeing places advertised for sale, were deceived by them; but, it occasionally turned out, that these same foolish and deceived people did, in the end, get those very places, which the advertisements invited them to purchase.
This explanation cannot, I should hope, fail to produce a very salutary effect.
The last part of the debate, upon which I think it necessary, at present, to make any remark, is that which related to libels and the liberty of the press. I have so recently discussed this subject, that it is quite irksome to return to it; yet, what was said in the debate, especially by Mr. Yorke and Mr. Canning, strongly urges me to say something, though it be mere repetition.—Both these gentlemen said, that there had been a series of libels published against the Duke of York; which may be very true; and, if they mean falsehood as an essential ingredient to constitute a libel, no man in all the world can wish the libellers to be punished more sincerely than I do; though I cannot help repeating what I have a thousand times said, that I do not think, that an aspersion upon the character of any man, was ever wiped off by an appeal to the law. No man ever practised what he preached more strictly than I do this doctrine. I have been, for about thirteen years, and am at this very day (see the Morning Post of Monday last), the object of almost continual printed calumny. Not calumny conveyed in inuendoes, but in downright charges of the most infamous nature. I do not think, that there is a crime known to man, that I have not, either in America, or at home, been charged with. Knowing them to be false, those charges never gave me a moment’s uneasiness. Once in a while, I have given a contradiction to lies, and have exposed misrepresentations. Trusting to the force of truth, I have, for the most part, left falsehood and malice to work their way; and, I do not believe, that in the opinion of one single sensible man that ever even heard of me, I have suffered, in the smallest degree, by the publications that have been made against me; and, as for fools, it is no matter what are their opinions.—But, there were two positions, one from Mr. Yorke and the other from Mr. Canning, to which I am disposed to pay particular attention.—The first of these gentlemen said, that libels had, of late, been more abundant, against persons in authority, than at any former period, in this country, so fertile in libels; and the latter said, that, in publications, rank ought to be regarded like sex, and that, to assail persons of exalted rank, was an act of baseness and cowardice, equal to that of assaulting a defenceless woman.—Mr. Canning may have been misrepresented by the reporters; they may not have caught his meaning; but, if they did, that meaning is decidedly hostile to my sentiments upon the subject; nay, it is the very reverse of those sentiments. There was much said about the “blessings of a free press;” but, if it be to be regarded as an act of baseness to assail men of rank, I should be glad to know in what those “blessings” consist? The “freedom of the press” means, the freedom of examining and exposing the actions of public men; men who are entrusted with the nation’s affairs; and these are necessarily men of high rank. If the “freedom of the press” has not this meaning, it has no meaning at all, and all the talk about it is nonsense; and, therefore, according to this new doctrine, to use the freedom of the press at all, is an act of baseness and cowardice. Of all bad, or despicable, qualities, that of cowardice is the last that I should have expected to hear imputed to an unsupported individual, who assails men in power. Cowardice might, indeed, well be imputed to those, who, supported by the powerful, should send their publications forth like a mail-coach, under government protection. To those, who, thus backed, should assail individuals, pour out upon them all sorts of calumnies, having no dread of punishment, cowardice may well be imputed. Here the charge of cowardice is due; for, not only would the calumniator be pretty secure from the dangers to which the opponents of men in power are exposed; but, worst come to worst, he would be sure of a compensation for his pains and his losses.
I have never yet got any answer to this question: “What is freedom of the press?” I want an answer to this question from some one of those, who talk of the “licentiousness of the press.” It does not consist in publishing books upon planting, farriery, or fox-hunting. There is not a despot upon earth, who attempts to prevent such publications. In short, it is farcical to talk about freedom of the press, unless by it we mean the right, the acknowledged legal right, of freely expressing our opinions, be they what they may, respecting the character and conduct of men in power; and of stating any thing, no matter what, if we can prove the truth of the statement.
In this sense the freedom of the press is a great “blessing.” In this sense it is “a terror to evil-doers, and a reward to those who do well;” but, if the freedom of the press means, that we are not to assail men in power; that they are to be as sacred from the quill as women are from the sword; while, on the other hand, the press is to praise them as much as it pleases; then, the “freedom of the press” is the greatest curse that ever fell upon a nation. It is in the character and conduct of men in power that the public are interested. These are the very matters, upon which they want, and ought to receive information. The babble of the day is of no public utility. The particulars of who walks or rides out with the King; of where and when the Duke of York salutes his royal parents; of the breakfasts and dances of Frogmore; of Generals Cartwright and Fitzroy’s going to chapel and hearing a sermon; of the cabinet and other grand dinners: these may amuse some few gossipping people; but of what use are they to the nation? Of full as little use are dissertations containing merely general principles, without a direct application of them to men and things of the present day.
But, we are sometimes told, that we may discuss the characters and measures of men in power, taking care not to hurt their feelings; that is to say, taking care never to blame either the men or the measures; for, if blamed, it follows of course, that their feelings must be hurt. We have been talked to a great deal about decency in these discussions; and we are now told, that we, of this day, are abusive; indeed, censure, or even disapprobation, however expressed, is now-a-day always called abuse. We are charged, too, with being foul-mouthed; coarse; personal; and are accused of surpassing in libellousness the writers of all former times. These assertions have been often made; but now, at a moment when there are so many persons under government prosecution for libels; now, when all the venal writers seem to have formed a conspiracy against the character, and, perhaps, the lives of those prosecuted persons, by exciting in the mind of those who are to be their jurors, a prejudice against them; now it is absolutely necessary to inquire into the truth of such assertions.
The writers of former times; times when not a thousandth part of the present corruptions prevailed; the writers (from some of whose works I am forming a collection to be published hereafter) who, in those times of comparative purity, surpassed in boldness, the writers of the present day; the bare names of those writers would fill a volume. I will, however, content myself with some extracts from Pope, who was one of the greatest scholars, the most acute reasoners, the most independent and virtuous man, and, without exception, the brightest genius that England ever produced. When he wrote, in the last reign, and in the year 1738, the laws and constitution of England were as well understood as they now are, and loyalty was not less a virtue than it now is. Corruption
