being at war with his nation, he is styled as in amity with our state? This is a prosecution which cannot possibly be supported, without saying that the contemporaneous history of the world is shut out from the British press; because if it is open to it at all, it must be liberally, impartially, and fearlessly open to it, and ought not to be dependent upon the interests or passions of the transient rulers of the day. I am prepared fairly to examine this, and not speculatively, but practically as it appears from the whole reason, intelligence, and custom of our country, as it is embodied in all our publications, not merely from private presses without an instance of prosecution or interruption, but from the public councils of the kingdom. The world, gentlemen, is at this moment so singularly circumstanced, and the characters and conduct of foreign princes are unfortunately so inseparably connected with British interests, that there must be an universal and perilous silence of the only rational policy of this Empire, or a reasonable latitude must be allowed, not only to consider the transactions of foreign governments, but the dispositions and characters of their princes; because it is notorious that the councils of their nations are dependent upon their sovereign's will. At this very moment, gentlemen, above all others the British government, should be very slow indeed to lay down a rule which must shut the mouths, and

break the presses of its own subjects and defenders, to prevent their showing that guilt and dishonor, which must be fixed somewhere, does not rest here, but with those princes of Europe, who, if protected by our laws from all examination of their conduct, the disgrace must attach upon ourselves.

It is by no means my purpose, either by assertion or insinuation, to bring before this court and jury, who have no jurisdiction upon the subject, any reproach or reflection upon our own ministers or counsels; I can appeal, indeed, confidentially to the noble judge, that though as a private man I have a right to my own opinions, I have never mixed such topics with any pleadings, unless they were not merely relevant, but the very subject to be discussed; and I feel a pleasure that my duty to-day directs to me a very different course, and which will lead to the justification of this supposed misdemeanor. It is, indeed, the best defence of British ministers, or rather the only one they have against responsibility for our present condition, that no libel can be written upon the sovereigns of Europe; but that on the contrary, no language is sufficiently impressive or copious to express the indignation and contempt that every Briton who loves his country ought to feel for them; but even if it could be decided that the law may be set in motion against those who speak the truth concern

ing them, yet privilege of speech at the bar is above this legal jurisdiction, and if any one happens to be here who is writing correctly what I am now saying to you, I will send it emblazoned to their foreign majesties that they may know what every body thinks at least concerning them, even if nobody should have the privilege of expressing it.

Our country, to speak plainly, is at this moment in a most tremendous crisis of her affairs; no man can look forward to the future without affliction, nor the bravest without dismay. Suppose, then, that any political writer, impressed with a sense of our danger, and actuated by the purest patriotism, were thus to address the councils of the King: "It is true that England stands at this moment the first amongst the nations of the world, and that her activities have been more honorable and more distinguished than at any former period in her history; but to what rational object have they been exerted? And what useful end are her exertions likely to produce? Neither humanity nor reason would consent to tear to pieces the muscles of a noble animal for the mere exhibition of its strength; you ought to have known from the beginning that your contest with France would end exactly as with the present management it is most likely to do." Would this, if committed to writing, be a libel even on our own government?

Against such a charge, could no defence be made consistently with our laws and constitution? Could the many worthy and independent men, who from honest principle, for opinions may be various upon such subjects, supported the war in its commencement, have no means of defence for exposing a mad and disgraceful waste of national strength without a national object? Suppose a man to be convinced that if the war had been conducted with integrity and concert by all the powers engaged, it might, in fair probability, have been successful; can it be contended that such a person, though he saw the disgust of the people excited by such disasters against our own government, must nevertheless suffer it to take its unjust and dangerous course, for fear of offending those worthy and active allies which it has pleased God to bless us with? Might not a political writer publish in a pamphlet his opinion that the war had not miscarried from any default in our own arms or councils, and show to what causes so many reverses were fairly to be imputed? And would the Attorney-General prosecute, because truth impelled such a writer to cast the blame upon our allies? And who can doubt that truth must so direct and im

pel every writer upon the subject?

If the princes of Europe were convinced, as they declared themselves to be, that the very principles, even without the arms of the French repub

lic, threatened the existence of their establishments, was not this an earnest to Great Britain of a most faithful and energetic confederacy, sufficient to overwhelm a power then in the first throes and convulsions of a sanguinary revolution? Was not this state of things a signal for universal activity and concord from the Mediterranean to the Baltic? Did it not promise a bond of union more sacred and indissoluble than ever before had united nations in the leagues of war? Was not their very existence as monarchs clearly at stake, whilst England from her insular situation, was more secure? And from the moment when their warlike confederacy was declared and acted upon, was there not then another and still stronger pledge for their fidelity, since, having declared that republican France was incompatible with the safety of Europe, they could not but know, that, like the first law of nature in the action and reaction of matter, the motto of republican France would be the destruction of all thrones? Now, all this forms the defence of our own country and its government for carrying on the war; and could it possibly be considered as a libel in our courts of justice, to prove that from no fault of ours, it had been unsuccessful, and even disastrous? Would it, I say, be a libel in a man fairly thinking and acting with government, and writing from unanswerable facts in its defence, to expose the causes which disap