★ Keep up to date with the latest news - subscribe to the Transcribe Bentham newsletter; Find a new page to transcribe in our list of Untranscribed Manuscripts
In the case of a person prosecuted for publication
The following questions have been made:
1. Libellous or not Libellous
2. Published or not published
3. Intentionally or unintentionally
4. With an innocent or a guilty motive
The 2 last questions have been compounded
and made one.
Were impartial Justice executed upon all offenders,
not the Civil List, nor so Civil Lists
would suffice for the expences of prosecution.
He who communicates the contents of a libel, is a publisher
& is guilty The King can do no wrong — but if he could
he would have been guilty — a thousand times
over he must have been guilty
Who has not been guilty? What member of
either House of Legislature, or Judge of any
Bench.
---page break---
He tells them not what has been done — he
tells them not the reasons there may have been
for or against what has been done.
If no body else is to tell them, how are they
to know?
If any one else does tell them, & it is a libel
But there is a manner of telling things —
but what is that manner? who has ever
described it? who will undertake to describe
it?
What signifies speaking at all of Magistrates
if they are never to be spoken ill of?
Is Is The Press is free? not in the best times, if there
ever were any better than the present which I
very much doubt, has it been ever free? Never.
Free indeed, de facto it is now, (for if it is not now, it
never has been) Free it is de facto, but never yet de Jure.
When should it have been ever free? under what
Judge. What Judge had ever any idea of what
we mean now by call the Liberty of the press?
---page break---
Ld Mansfield in a Motion for an Information for a Libel. Nash and Licet were names concerned.
"And this is called appealing to the impartial
"public, who if they ever judge right, never
do it for a right reason"
In state matters, does this apply only to those
out of the Legislature, and not at all to those
in the Legislature?
Take the Kingdom throughout, are there not
always more persons fit to judge of Public
affairs out of the Legislature than in?
In the H of Commons, there are 555 members
300 may be supposed to have had rivals at
their election.
Was the successful party always the only one
that was fit?
If not, how are the people that makes a great number who are
fit to judge of State-affairs by supposition.
If so he is how come the people to be able to
judge distinguish him & know that he alone is
fitting
---page break---
The Political Sanction is inadequate.
Ith For coercion of misconduct of private
individuals & that
1st For defect of legal evidence
2. Because it For want of cognizance
II. For coercion of misconduct of Statesmen
1d & 2.dly For the above reasons
3.dly Because the parties who are to prosecute
or to judge may be the very persons
in whom the misconduct lies.
The Moral Sanction must therefore be called in.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Are no complaints to be allowed of to be made endured
but what are just? This is to establish the
law of the Czar Peter.
And who are those who are to determine
whether it is just or no? those who are
complained of.
By the Statute a Member is who has received
a place is to be sent back to his Electors, for them
to determine whether his conduct has been such
as to entitle him to a continuance of their confidence.
He tells them not what his conduct has been
SCANDAL. Libels State. [BR][1][ ]
|
Identifier: | JB/070/184/001 "JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 70.
|
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
070 |
of laws in general |
||
|
184 |
scandal - libels - state |
||
|
001 |
|||
|
text sheet |
1 |
||
|
recto |
|||
|
jeremy bentham |
[[watermarks::gr [crown motif] [britannia with shield motif]]] |
||
|
23299 |
|||