Star.
London, England, 1816-05-09 00:00:00

LIBERTY or THE PRESS.

Mr. BROUGHAM, in rising to mike the motion
of which he had given notice, respecting the Liberty
of the Press, claimed the indulgence of the House
for the statement which he should have to make, on
account of the magnitude of the subject. The im-
portance of the privileges connected with a free press
were so well khown, that he should not say one
word respecting then. ; his object was to prove, that
the laws by which that liberty was seemed were ca-
pable of amendment. In. shewing the necessity of
an alteration in the law, it was not enough to make
it appear that there was an absurdity in the letter of
the law, without going a step further, and strewing
that practical inconvenience did result, had resulted,
er was likely to result from it ; because nothing would
be less wi* than to attempt to legislate for the pur-
pose of removing an apparent inconsistency merely.
It WAS necessary for him to guard against another
error into which sumo persons had fallen, as to the
improvement of the la*, which was the supposition
that all that was necessary was to revert Co the juris-
prudence of former times, or what were called by
those persons the purer times of our Constitution.—
He mentioned this argument because it was urged by
persons of great respectability and profoind know-
ledge, but at was an unfortunate prejudice, MS it
tended to throw discredit on their attempts, and
formed an answer to their plans of improvemein.—
For his own part he thought that, with one el two,
exceptions, our Constitution was never in a better
state than now, except in one or two instances, in
whkh it was best to try to remove its blemishes.,
Another error which had arisen from the nature the'
press was a supposition that its liberty could be se-
cured bj.lawk defining libel; similar to that by which
I ciiiiiructiveireaions Lad beln . abolished—how to de-
fine treason was perhaps au easy task, and though
possibly the law of Edward HL had drawn too lien-
:ow a Line by **raining treason to the levying war
against the Kit* or conspiring against his lite, it was
a prodigious ittiprovement, compared with the laW
by which so many multifarious offences were visited'
by the terrible punishment attached to that crime. Bat
in an attempt to define libel, if it were said that alihel
was an attack on the character of the Sovereign, it re-
mained to be explained what was an at tack nn character.
The truh was, that it was best left to common sense
to dui& what was ap attack on character, and cen-
sequently a libel. The chief injustice under which
persons prosecuted for libel at present lalwitred was,
that it was of no consequeuce, en the trial of his cause,
whether the whole of the writing alledged to be a libel
was truth from beginning, to end, or an arrant false-
' hood.—Now though whetter a statement was true or
false, did not altogether determine the guilt or inno-
cence of the writer, let it Was orimportance• to take
it into account in weighing the motives of the writer.
To say that a Minister of State deserved impeach-
' meat, or that A. B. was goilty, of felony, might be
perActly tree, but the writer might be actuated by
nothing but malice, and might, therefore, be guilty
of a libel.—Unless the opponents to his argument
were prepared to say that them wasno yossiote case
In which the cinestion.of Guilty or Not Guilty could
be aimed by the truth Is faluitood °Abe libels and