On this page
-
Text (1)
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
rience , that not one of them would have moved hand or foot in the matter , if a bolder man had not led the way . We give Mr . O'Conneli the greatest credit for introducing the subject ; and we now trust , that those who have the capacity may have also the will to assist him in rendering the very imperfect measure which he proposes as perfect as possible .
Mr . O'Connell ' s measure , if we may judge from his openin g statement , goes , as it appears to us , too far , and not far enou gh . He seems to have taken nothing into his view but personal libels . He said not a word of any provision for the free discussion of doctrines , or of institutions , although this is ^ if possible , stil more important than even the liberty of criticising the conduct of public functionaries . On the subject of religion , that on which beyond all others discussion ought not to be restrained by lawbeing already restrained so much more than is consistent with a wholesome state of the human mind , by mere opinion—Mr . O'Conneli avows his intention of not innovating on the
existing law ; though , greatly to his honour , he has not flinched froni declaring , in the strongest terms , that , in his opinion , discussion on the subject of religion ought to be perfectly free . But restrictions of a similar nature exist on the subject of politics also , and Mr . O'Conneli has not yet said that he proposes to remove them . We cannot so much as conceive any great improvement in the law of libel , not commencing with a declaration that it shall be lawful to controvert any political doctrine , or attack any law or institution , without exception ; in any manner and in any terms not constituting a direct instigation to an act of treason , or to some other specific act to which penalties are attached by the law . Mr . O'Conneli has held out no promise of any such
provision . On the other hand , Mr . O'Conneli goes farther than we are able to follow him , when he proposes that in all cases of private libel , truth should be a justification . Where , indeed , the imputation is not upon the private , but upon the public character of a public man ; or where the act imputed , though belonging to
private life , is in its nature public , ( for instance , any violation of decenc y in a public place , ) or has already received publicity , ( for instance , by the proceedings of a Court of Justice , ) we think , with Mr . O'Conneli , that the truth of the charge ought to be a sufficient defence ; and we would even allow the alleged libeller to clear himself , though the charge be false , by showing that he had good grounds for believing it to be true . But we would not permit the press to impute , even truly , acts , however discreditable , which are in their nature private . We would not allow the truth of such imputations to be even pleaded in mitigation . The very atte mpt to establish the charge by evidence , would often be a
gross aggravation of the original injury . We see insuperable objections to allowing the details of a person ' s private conduct to
Untitled Article
Mr . CTConnelV * Bill Jar the Liberty of the Press . 175
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), March 2, 1834, page 175, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2631/page/15/
-