that

"tence requifite. A man

not,

here

e de

every a for

have

merly

ld not

ofecucarried

re was

to my

• felf,

fame words libellous or

❝plication he gives them, ironical, or burlefque, neft. The fubject is ge

"not legal; and a jury, p "cial jury, can collect t "writer, or publisher, as v "civilian, or common ❝land 19,"

BLACKSTONE, though he has too implicitly copied former law-compilers, in what he has faid on the fubject of libels, yet confiders the criminality of a publication not only as the principal object of inquiry, but also as a matter of fact. • In a ⚫ criminal profecution,' he fays, the tendency which all libels have to create ani • mofities, and to disturb the public peace, is the fole confideration of the law. And, therefore, in fuch profecutions, the only FACTS * to be confidered are, firft, the • making

Since the above was written, having examined a later edition of the COMMENTARIES, I find that Blackstone has altered the paffage here cited, and inferted the word POINTS instead of FACTS. This is an evident accommodation to the doctrine that has lately been so zealously propagated upon this fubject; and the paffage is alfo now better adapted to that GLOS RIOUS UNCERTAINTY in the law, the promotion of which feems to be one great object of fome of its

fages.

ani.

ace,

And,

only

the

king

ed a

that

and

This at has

oject;

GLO on of

of its

Cages,

juries that they had nothing find the mere fact of publish ing or printing, they have fomething that appeared ver internal consciousness, tha least upon doubtful ground, a they poffeffed any degree of nefs, would not implicitly

fages, But it is manifeft, that the rupted opinion of Blackstone was, of a book or paper, whether it was, was a question of FACT, and not a

`ao Commentaries, Book IV. ch.

Oxford, 1769.

rections. For it has been common for them, as well as the council for the crown, to dwell upon the criminality of the publica tions ftyled libels, in order to induce the jury to bring in a verdict of Guilty against the defendant.

IN the cafe of the feven bishops, the jury determined both the law and the fact; the fact of their being the authors of the petition called a libel was clearly proved; and yet the jury found a general verdict of NOT GUILTY. But it fhould be remarked, that, even in that memorable case, Sir Robert Wright, the chief justice, though very defirous of convicting the bishops, yet, in his charge to the jury, did not choose to tell them, that they were not to confider whether it was a libel; but faid, after having gone through the evidence refpecting the publication,Now, gentlemen, any body ⚫ that shall disturb the government, or make • mischief,

which it may be inferred, thought the point of law a was not wholly out of their On the trial of John Tut at Guildhall, in the year 17 juftice Holt, in his charge to th citing fome paffages from the made ufe of the following w • to confider, whether thef read to you, do not tend t opinion of the adminiftrat vernment "'.' It is eviden

21