610 
press in this country, yet the many 
other countries that have been de- 
prived of this benefit, must forcibly 
impress us with the propriety of 
looking vigilantly to ourselyes,— 
Tolland, Switzerland, and the impe- 
rial towns, participated with us the 
benefit of a free press. Holland ang 
Switzerland are now no more, an 
near fifty of the free imperial towns 
of Germany have vanished since the 
commencement of this prosecution. 
Now that all this is gone, there is no 
longer any control but what this 
country afiords. Eyery press on 
the continent, from Palermo to 
Hamburgh, is enslaved ; one place 
only remains where the press is free, 
protected by our government and 
our patriotism. It is an awfully 
proud consideration, that venerable 
fabric, raised by our ancestors, still 
stands unshaken amidst the ruins 
that surround us. You are the ad- 
vanced guard of liberty: permit me, 
therefore, to remind you of some of 
the principles on which our ances- 
tors acted, with respect to foreign 
powers, in cases like the present. 
Mr. Mackintosh here stated that the 
law was not exactly defined, so as 
to ascertain the Jimits that distin- 
guished history and fair observation 
from libel. It was left to juries to 
determine, in every single instance, 
by the malicious intention that may 
appear in the publication; and this 
confidence, so reposed by the legis- 
Yature, had never once been abused 
since the revolution. It was the 
happiness of this country, that the 
Jawest individual had a right to dis- 
cuss the public measures of his time ; 
and though it may, in some in- 
stances, be conceived that this was 
injurious in times of domestic dissen- 
tion, it could not be denied that it 
was always beneficial when applied 
“ - 
~ 
ANNUAL REGISTER, i803. 
to foreign affairs. Here Mr. Mack- 
intosh went into the particulars of 
M. Petter’s publication, extending 
the liberty of historical discussion to 
the detail not only of events, but of 
the probable causes and conse- 
quences of these events. M. Pel- 
tier was at liberty to detail the 
views of the factions into which the 
French republic was divided, and for 
this purpose to republish the writ- 
ings of these factions. It was even 
justifiable in him to expose the prin- 
ciples of these factions, by writing in 
their spirit, and imputing to them 
expressions deducible from their 
principles. It was very likely that 
Chenier did, in fact, write the ode 
given under his name, and in that 
case, even though it should be se-, 
vere and libellous on Bonaparte, 
could it be called a libel in M. Pel- 
tier to republish it here? If it was, 
why were the English newspapers 
suffered every day, for ten years 
back, to republish volumes of 
abuse and calumny against this 
nation and its government in the 
French journals, and lately in a 
style particularly malignant and 
atrocious in the official journal the 
Moniteur. No criminality was by 
any person supposed to attach to 
the newspapers, because there was 
no criminal intention in the republi- 
cation, which was made only to ex- 
cite the detestation and horror ne- 
cessarily consequent to such flagi- 
tious abuse of our national character 
and our. government. Why pass 
over the republication of an article 
in which a most gallavt officer was 
charged with exciting to assassina~ 
tion ; and why suffer English news- 
papers to republish, without the 
imputation of a crime, the most in- 
famous libels on a prince who had 
passed though a reign of forty-three 
years, 
