If the negligent publication of a libel, though
M^ithout criminal intention, ought to continue to be
an anomaly, and to subject the negligent publisher to
' an Information, or Indictment, as zvell as to an ac-
tion for danmges ; why ought not the law to be so
declared or enacted, or even without declaration or,
enactment, such Informations and Indictments be
drawn with distinct counts, or charges; one
charging the criminal intention, so as to identify the
criminal publisher with the author, and another
charging a negligent publication, by which the
crimes which are extremely different, and the punish-



fit^ PRBPACB TO MR. £ESktNxfs SnfiCH IIT THS

ments whkh might to be equally so, would be distin*
guished from each other; whereas, according to tke
present course of proceeding, a mere negligent j)»6-
Hsher must be found guilty of the Indictment, charg-^
wg a criminal publication only ; and, after convic
Hon, stands before the Court (as the case fnay bej,
as a t7'ea^onabte, seditious, or malignant puhlisherj
and cmmot be received to mitigate his sentence as
having been negligent only, being estopped by tke
record of the conviction; although the Judge»f
from humanity and Justice, are every day obliged, in
tlie teeth of the record, to mitigate, by a side-wind^'
the judgments of the law, upon principles which iktf
law does not openly sanction. It is this anonkdt/
which so often etitangles tke consciences of Jtnies^'
and will continue to do so till the case is duly conoid
dered M/ tke Legislature, and the question,, one way
or the other, set at rest. From the same anomafy,*
the R&o. Mr. Bate Dudley was acquitted as not
being it criminal publisher, many years ago, Lord
Erskine and Mr. Pitt, then at the Bar, being kis
Counsel. But the acquittal was against tke opinio?^
of Lord Mansfield, who wholly &cer-ruled Lord Er-^
skine's argument, and directed the Jury to convict.
