Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1817-08-01


The KING v. THOMAS jonathan WooLLER.
This was am information filed against
the defendant by his maiesty's attorney
general for libel published in work,
called Tie Black Dwd,J, of which the de-
PENDANT was the author. The informa-
ton, which contained two counts, cliarg
ed, first, that the defendant, intending to
excite discomfort and dsaifection i'm the
minds of the subjects ofour lord the king,
had published a certain scanda!ous and
malicious libel, rejecting OH the kings
administration of government and 2d,
that, Intending to excite discomfort and
dlsaiiection i'll the minds OF the subjects
o! our lord the king against the present
administration of public affairs, the de
PENDANT had published another scanda-
lous and malicious libel, rcflectiug on the
character of lord viscOnnt Castlereagli,
and the right honorabl" George Canning.
The ibels, which viii be stated in the
course of the trial, were SC, forth at length
in the information.
The attorney general, in stating the
case, observed, that amongst other bless
ings which The free constitution of Eng
land guaranteed TO the people, was the Ii
berty of tie press. But this, like other
blessings, might be abused-it might de-
generate into Notwithstanding there
fore, it must be confined within certain
bounds and limits. Ii WIS impossible for
any man, who desired the real welfare of
society, If he had all honest mind, and
correct understanding, not TO perceive,
that without bounds aud limits were as
signed to it, the liberty ofthe press would
degenerate into Righteousness, and would,
at length, destroy every blessing which
subjects enjoyed under this or any other
constitution. He stated this boIdly-it
was his firm belief, after much considera-
rlon OH tie subject-and he conceived, il
was principle that could not lie coniro-
verted. What were the proper bounds of
! the liberty of the press, became another
ques;r,;;::- and whether those bounds had
been exceeded, We subject matter ct
inquiry for the jury, un,..cr the direction
of The learned Judge To discuss fairly,
freely, strongly, and boldly, the measures
that had been taken, by the adminislra-
ton OF The country, or which that admin
siraiion were pursuing, was an exercise of
the liberty of the press which he would
he one OF the last men 10 trench upon.
But, under any form of government,
whether monarchcal, democratic, or of
any other description, TO impute to those
who had the administration of govern
ment, wicked and corrupt motives, either
OF pecuniary nature, or of another and
worse sort, namely, that corruption which
originated in desire 10 destroy the con-
stitution of the country this, he would
state, without hazard of contradiction,
was libel against the government, and
against the ministers employed in that
government. This was not new doc
trne; it had been laid down by the most
enlightened judges that ever sat in that
court, at period too when the constitu-
ton was supposed TO stand on its fairest
and firmest basis he meant at the time
of the revolution. Ii was then stated, by
Chief justice Holt, that, to impute cor
ruptIen TO the ministers of the govern
meni, was AT all times, and still is, d crime
which Ut II were not prevented, must
endaDger The existence of any State" If
! the present publication only reasoned on
| the general system of government, or on
| the system which it was found necessary
| to pursue, for several years, i'll prOsecu-
! ton of the war with France, he would
| have overlooked il. He was perfectly will
ling TO admit, that if a man were fairly
and conscientiously discussing all the
measures that has been resorted to---and
| if, in the violence OF his argument, he
w Mt little beyond those bounds which
| the law set up for the liberty of the press,
an excuse might be made for the warmth
| OF his feelings. He was one of those men,
| who, IN such case, would not dwell on
| those alterations from the strict line of
| argument he would not, in consequence
| of them, charge the individual with in
| fiammatory and seditious views. But,
| when the whole sum and substance of
| statement, charged the government of the
country with corruption, with treachery,
with determination, persisted in for
| years, to destroy the Liberties Of the peo-
pie, IT was no longer fair argument on
| general affairs, II became malicious Ii
bel, impuiing 10 those who were employed
in carrying into effect the measures of the
government the most wicked and impure
motives. If individuals had right 10 do
| this to any administration, they had a
right TO do it to ALL If they had a right
TO do it under one form Of government,
they had a right TO do il under all and,
therefore, he stated il as decided princi-
ciple, that il was impossible for any go
yernment TO exist under such circumstan-
ces. The defendant, in the libel com
planned OF, not only accused government
with acting cOrTUptly, in the administra-
ton Of the domestic affairs of this cOun-
try, but asserted that they were equally
corrupt, with reference to the relations
they had formed with foreign states. If,
speaking of the justice or wisdom of a
war, the defendant is pleased TO state, as
he had done, that the king ministers had
entered into 1t for tile sole purpose of de
siroying the liberties of their own coun-
try---if he declared, from first to last, that
they had been guilty of corruption and
treachery, was not this bringing them in-
to hatred and contempt among the kings
subjects was not this exciting a spirit oil
| n la.
the nature Of the libel that was charged
| and lia asked ,nllcil,nr such a nia.tcnnct,I