Thoughts on the Present Discontents, and SpeechesBurke, Edmund
General
Thoughts on the Present Discontents, and Speeches
Burke, Edmund
Great Britain -- Politics and government -- 1760-1789
Here we must have recourse to analogies, for we cannot argue on ruled
cases one way or the other. See the history. The old books, deficient
in general in Crown cases furnish us with little on this head. As to the
crime, in the very early Saxon Law, I see an offence of this species,
called Folk-leasing, made a capital offence, but no very precise
definition of the crime, and no trial at all: see the statute of 3rd
Edward I. cap. 34. The law of libels could not have arrived at a very
early period in this country. It is no wonder that we find no vestige of
any constitution from authority, or of any deductions from legal science
in our old books and records upon that subject. The statute of
_scandalum magnatum_ is the oldest that I know, and this goes but a
little way in this sort of learning. Libelling is not the crime of an
illiterate people. When they were thought no mean clerks who could read
and write, when he who could read and write was presumptively a person in
holy orders, libels could not be general or dangerous; and scandals
merely oral could spread little, and must perish soon. It is writing, it
is printing more emphatically, that imps calumny with those eagle wings,
on which, as the poet says, "immortal slanders fly." By the press they
spread, they last, they leave the sting in the wound. Printing was not
known in England much earlier than the reign of Henry VII., and in the
third year of that reign the Court of Star Chamber was established. The
press and its enemy are nearly coeval. As no positive law against libels
existed, they fell under the indefinite class of misdemeanours. For the
trial of misdemeanours that court was instituted, their tendency to
produce riots and disorders was a main part of the charge, and was laid,
in order to give the court jurisdiction chiefly against libels. The
offence was new. Learning of their own upon the subject they had none,
and they were obliged to resort to the only emporium where it was to be
had, the Roman Law. After the Star Chamber was abolished in the 10th of
Charles I. its authority indeed ceased, but its maxims subsisted and
survived it. The spirit of the Star Chamber has transmigrated and lived
again, and Westminster Hall was obliged to borrow from the Star Chamber,
for the same reasons as the Star Chamber had borrowed from the Roman
Forum, because they had no law, statute, or tradition of their own. Thus
the Roman Law took possession of our courts, I mean its doctrine, not its
sanctions; the severity of capital punishment was omitted, all the rest
remained. The grounds of these laws are just and equitable. Undoubtedly
the good fame of every man ought to be under the protection of the laws
as well as his life, and liberty, and property. Good fame is an outwork,
that defends them all, and renders them all valuable. The law forbids
you to revenge; when it ties up the hands of some, it ought to restrain
the tongues of others.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account