170] 
in the House of Lords during the 
preceding session, was now brought 
again before parliament, and sup- 
ported by the whole strength of the 
friends to constitutional liberty and 
safety of every subject. 
It isa profound observation, that 
the perversion of the greatest good 
becomes the greatest evil*. The 
extreme licentiousness of the press 
in this land of liberty, had excited, 
onmany occasions, great disturban- 
ces and tumults, and on some, al- 
most shook the fabric of govern- 
ment, ‘he crown-lawyers became 
jealous of that powerful engine of 
good andevil; and, running on their 
part to the opposite extreme, at- 
tempted to control and. intimidate 
all writers of journals, pamphlets, 
and books, from declaring their 
opinions with freedom on the sub- 
ject of public affairs and characters, 
or on the conduct and character of 
persons in private stations. A max- 
im laid down by Lord Chief Justice 
Mansfield, that “the greater the 
truththe greater the libel,” was uni- 
versally established in courts of jus- 
tice ; and juries were notallowed to 
decideincases of libelsonthe whole 
question at issue, but confined to 
the single point of such or such 
words ov sentences being spoken, 
printed, or published by such orsuch 
persons. The meaning, the inten- 
tion of the words, was determined 
not by juries, but judges. And as 
the doctrine of libels was vague and 
indefinite, a great latitude of inter- 
pretation was left to the breasts of 
the judges; who, from their situa- 
tions and views, have generally a 
strong bias to the prerogatives of 
the crown, The result of prosecu- 
tions depended very much on the 
temper and disposition of the judge, 
whose sway over the juries was al- 
* Corruptio optimi fit pessima, 
ANNUAL REGISTER, 1702. 
most omnipotent. Andthe doctrine 
of libels was agreat engine of terror 
in the hands of government. 
A bill was therefore brought into 
Parliament by Mr. Fox, for declar+ 
ing the power of juries to decide 
upon the law, as well as the fact, in 
trials for libels. Mr. Fox, on this 
occasion, displayed not only his us- 
ual eloquence and manly sense, but, 
asthe subject required, great gram- 
matical, logical, and legal acuteness. 
The decision of this important 
question turned not a little ona 
critical observation of Mr. Fox’s, 
on the word meaning, which is used 
in all indictments for libels.. The 
term to mean, he observed, might 
be taken in two different senses: 
one in which it may be understood 
toimply a proposition, according to 
strict grammatical and logical con- 
struction; another, in which it may 
be taken to express the intention of 
the writer and speaker. It was in 
the former sense exclusively, that it 
had been for many years past taken 
by the judges; but it was in the 
latter that it ought to be taken by an 
impartial and candid English jury ; 
who were not to determine whether 
the words might not, possibly, in 
grammatical and logical construc- 
tionbe made to bear the interpreta- 
tion implied in the indictment, but 
what wasbona fidethe intention and 
quo animo with which they were 
used, all circumstances considered. 
And this, Mr. Fox justly contended, 
did not exceed the province of ju-' 
ries, since the intention of the ac- 
cused party was in reality a part of 
the fact to be proved or disproved. 
On the 24th of April, the day 
fixed for its discussion in the upper 
House, Lord Kenyon proposed se~ 
veral questions touching the bill to 
the judges; theirdecision on which 
requiring 
Bacon, 
