have no legal fanction but the occafional adoption of fome of the judges. In truth, most of the doctrines concerning libels, which are to be found in Viner and in Hawkins, are entitled to no other reception from the people of England, but that of the most indignant contempt. They are totally inconfiftent with every principle of a free conftitution, they never formed authentic part of the legal code of this country, they were never ratified by parliament, they were never authorized by our ancestors. any vail, we shall not be permitted in this free country to speak truth, either of the dead, or of the living. No hiftory can be written; for no true hiftory of any country has ever appeared, in which the dead were not libelled; that is, in which fome evil was not spoken of them. No man can pub ple ned this lia our pre free ad, rit has not was ub lith publication. At least, the can never be alleged in what is published. But th no part of the antient c England, nor have they fied by the legislature. I law repugnant to the prin conftitution; it is law onl JUDGES; and which the peoj and unanimoufly oppofe. ftances the judges, under declaring what the comm actually made the law. particularly the cafe with re H 3 the doctrines which have been advanced concerning libels; and the law which has been made by them upon this fubject, has been highly injurious to the rights of the people, and totally inconfiftent with national freedom. Thefe doctrines were not, indeed, invented by the judges; they were derived from the court of Star-chamber; but it is the adoption of them by fome of the judges, which has alone given to these doctrines the venerable denomination of the law of England. To their authority too implicit an acquiefcence has been given. The judges are very high and refpectable magistrates, appointed to affift in the administration of the laws; but it was never intended by the constitution that they fhould be legiflators. The latter character has, however, been too much affumed by them; and to this affumed power a submisfion has been paid, to which it undoubtedly never had a conftitutional claim. A IF the Star-chamber doctrines concerning libels be the law of England, they are an extreme difgrace to this country, and ought to be immediately abolished by exprefs ftatute. But they never received the fanction of the legislature, they are adverse to every principle of our free constitution, and can derive no authority from the infamous court to which they owe their origin. Nor ought any maxims to be received as law in this country, which have not a better fource, and which are not. more congenial to the general spirit of our conftitution. MANY hardships and oppreffions which have been fuffered, by those persons who have undergone profecutions for libels, and fome of whom have been men of as much integrity as any this country has produced, have been the refult of the grofs partiality of the judges in crown caufes. It may also be observed, that the fentences for libels. in the court of Star-chamber were extremely rigorous and cruel; and after the abolition of that court, the Star-chamber fentences, as well as the Star-chamber doc trines, were too closely copied by the courts of law. In the worst times, grofs injustice has been committed by the judges in fuch cafes; and these inftances are urged as PRECEDENTS 62, in better and more moderate times. 62 The PRECEDENTS of fentences, in trials for libels, naturally bring to remembrance the remarks of Swift. It is a maxim,' fays he, among these · lawyers, that whatever hath been done before, may legally be done again; and, therefore, they take fpecial care to record all the decifions formerly made against common juftice, and the general rea• fon of mankind. These, under the name of PRECEDENTS, they produce as authorities to justify the moft iniquitous opinions, and the judges never fail of directing accordingly.' Voyage to the Houyhnhnms, ch. v. |