Page images
PDF
EPUB

city:" and yet this man had afterwards the effrontery to lay to the English the charge of having destroyed Lyons. Is it then improbable that fuch a perfon as Fouche fhould have practifed this infamous trick, and got fuch a paper as this flipt among the papers of Camille Jourdan, for the purpofe of having him arrefted and thrown into prifon? As to the internal evidence, Gentlemen of the Jury, I have already told you, that there is not a line in all thefe publications which contains a Royalift entiment; but, on the contrary, they are furioufly Jacobinical. Does any body fufpe&t Peltier of being a Jacobin? Certainly not. Whenever anger is expreffed in thefe pieces against Bonaparte, it is for overturning the Directory. Is that like the rage of a Royalift or a Jacobin? And is it not, then, more likely that these articles were really the productions of thofe they are attributed to, Chenier, Fouche, &c.? In that cafe, Peltier is not to be confidered as the author, but as a perfon who, with innocent motives, reprinted them in a mifcellaneous work, for the amusement of the fmall circle of his readers. The circulation of the "Ambigu" could not be intended to be among English men, as it is written in French; nor in France, for Bonaparte knows effectually how to prohi bit the entry of fuch articles into his dominions. Having now endeavoured to prove to you, that it is not probable that Peltier was the author or original publisher of thofe works, or that he at all wished to inculcate the Jacobin principles they contain, I mult warn you of the immenfe importance of the free difcuffion of political events. If at all times the liberty of the prefs was dear to Englishmen, it thould be more peculiarly dear now that it is the only free prefs in the world. Gentlemen, I confider this as the firft contell between the greatest Power on earth and the British free prefs; the only one now remaining. That it is to is a melancholy reflection to the friends of human nature. Till that great earthquake, occafioned by the French revo lution, had fwallowed up the preffes of the Continent, there had, by the indulgence of the larger Powers, exifted many States in which a free prefs had been tolerated. This was the cafe in Holland, Switzerland, and the free towns of Germany. Holland and Switzerland are no more, and fifty of the

Ger nanic free States have been erafed from the map by a dash of the pen. Thefe States I confider as a very interefting part of the ancient fyftem. Great nations cannot exist without confidering their military fyftem, but fmall States are obliged to devote themfelves to industry and the arts of peace; and they form a kind of control over the fuperior ones; for no depravity can fo fink any man in his own esteem, as to render him regardless of the opinion of the world. The undisturbed repofe which the States I have referred to were fuffered to enjoy, enabled them to become models attesting the civilization to which Chriftian Europe had reached. Nothing fo much proved the civilization of the Continent at the period I refer to, as the freedom enjoyed by the little Republic of Genoa. It was fuffered to remain undisturbed and unthreatened, while furrounded by myriads of the armies of France. All this is now paft and gone. What the new fyftem is to be is not for me to conjecture; but I am perfectly convinced that the arbitrary violence of ambitious monarchs has been checked by the dread of the opinion of the impartial audience formed among the fmaller States, and in which no fooner were any acts of oppreffion known than a thousand preffes were fet to work to commu. nicate them to the world. At prefent there is not fuch a thing as a free prefs from Palermo to Hamburgh: not one afylum for the liberty of difcuflion remains-no public voice, the expreffion of which can controul the defpotic attempts of arbitrary tyrants. Happily, however, thofe preffes are ftill fecure which are protected by the British Government, and by the valour of English.. men. The ancient fabric, raised by our ancestors, ftill endures; though furrounded with ruins, it stands folid and unshaken. Gentlemen of the Jury, to fhew you of what importance our anceltors always held this privilege, I fhall trace a little the origin of it. Queen Elizabeth was the fit who etablished a newspaper in England; fhe did fo at the time of the Spanish Armada, when it was neceffary to preferve high the tone and spirit of the people. In Cromwell's Ufurpation, the freedom of the prefs was protected by British Juries, and Cromwell's Attorney-General was twice defeated in this Court. In Charles the Second's days, though the times were corrupt

and

and profligate, yet the prefs was fafe; and in the days of the Revolution, and ever fince, it has been held one of the deareft privileges of Englishmen. In latter times we can speak more pofi. tively, from our own experience, on this very point. In that nrft grand breach of the focial fyftem of Europe, that national robbery, called the firft partition of Poland, did not the English papers vent the ftrongest feelings of indignation? Catherine and Frederic were not treated according to their rank, but according to the crime in which they had partaken. We were then at peace and amity with Ruffia and Pruffia; and yet the AttorneyGeneral of the day ever thought of profecuting the Editors and Publithers of thofe papers. In the fecond partition of Poland, too, the British prefs expreffed the honeft indignation of the country; and it is well, not only for this country, but for the focial order of Europe in general, that it should be fo. However formidable a Sovereign's military establishment may be; however great his power and extenfive his fway; till the feelings of human nature compel him to with for the approbation of his fellow-men, and bring him to the bar of the tribunal of public opinion. Newspapers, I am aware, are not very popular in this place; nor is it very fur prifing, becaule they appear in this place only to be checked for their faults. With all their faults, however, their increafed circulation is a proof of the increafing curiofity and defire of knowledge in this country, of which they are at once the caute and effect. Perhaps it would be better to treat thofe engaged in this difficult employment with a little more indulgence, in order to teach them that reif relpect which is the belt way to lead men to cultivate that of others. Be this as it may, however, every thing that increases the number of those who take an intereft, and excrcite a judgment, in public affairs, is, in effect, to increase the real democracy of a country, much more than thofe forms to which fome people are fo much attached. If it be important that the public mind fhould be fortified against the defign of foreign power, it is fit that the difcution moft calculated to diffeminate a public fpirit thould be encouraged. Upon every occafion in which the public opinion of this country could be difplayed refpecting foreign affairs, it

has been uniformly given, and no attempt has been made to reprefs it. From the feizure of Cortica down to the different partitions of Poland, the public fentiment of England has inoft trongly been exprefled against fuch unwarrantable robberies. Next followed an event, in comparison of which the atrocity of preceding fpoliations become trivial. Switzerland, a country for three hundred years the abode of peace; a country, as it were, railed above the ftorms of political events; a country boatting of a gallant and difciplined army, without ever attacking its neighbours, rich without impofing taxes, till its riches tempt the spoiler, and become a caufe of its ruin. Switzerland is doomed to fall under the impofing ravages of the French revolution. Had fuch an event taken place in times of peace, would it have been neceflary for the public of this country to stifle the voice of fympathy and forrow, for fear of giving offence to the ruthlefs tyrants? Had Alois Reding, a name worthy to compare with the firit of names, for true fimplicity of virtue and unaffected magnanimity of character; had Alois Reding, who, with a handful of pealants, defeated the conquerors of Europe on the foil where, three hundred years before, their ancestors fought the oppreflors, of their liberty, fought an afylum in England, attracted by the renown of this mighty Empire; would my learned Friend have told him, that he mult conceal his tears, and breathe low his fighs, for the ruin of his country, let his potent enemy thould drive him from his afylum, or lead him into Court, the victim of profecution?" I am fure that no Engliman could think with patience of fuch an ignominy; and fure I am that my learned Friend has a heart too thoroughly English to brook fuch difgrace. Had we been at peace between 1792 and 1794, could an Englih Court or an English Jury have been called upon to protect the reputa tion of a Robespierre, Prefident of the Committee of Safety; of his friend Marat; of a Carrier, his agent, who drowned 2,000 Priests in the Loire, and caufed 600 childeen, under fourteen, to be thot by the foldiery? Could the laws of England have been called upon to protect, because they were in place, thofe butchers who perpetrated, within that period of two years, atro. cities which, contrary to the practice of

mankind,

mankind, are generally under-rated, not Exaggerated? Atrocities fo prodigious as to compel the mind to feek refuge in fcepticism; and which, but half believed, are now but half remembered. But I cannot, with regard to my own feelings, or the respect I bear my learned Friend, purfue this train of interrogation. Had fuch things taken place, the courage of our Courts, and the integrity of our Ju. ries, had been our only refource. All would have been loft, but the unextinguishable fpirit of an English Jury. To conclude--I trust that on this, as on all former occasions, the unfubdued fpirit of the country will appear. All I ask is, a a favourable conftruction for what may appear ambiguous."

The Attorney-General.-"Gentlemen, you have heard a fpeech full of molt fplendid eloquence, and moft wonderful ingenuity. Nothing, of which the subject is capable, has been neglected by my learned Friend, to give weight to his argument. It is now my duty, with far fecbler powers, to make fome remarks upon that torrent of almoft irrefiftible eloquence. My learned Friend has faid, the Chief Magistrate of the French Republic is the profecutor in the prefent libel. This I am authorised to deny. It is not the Chief Magiftrate of France that now comes forwards in order to vindicate bis character, and to claim the protection of a British Jury, against thofe papers which feem to be published with a view to endanger his perfon, and to procure his aflaflination.No! It is the Chief Magiftrate of this country, feebly reprefented by the perton now before you, who appears, to enforce the laws of the realm against a publication, the obvious tendency of which is to encourage affaflination, and difturb the good understanding that at this moment exilts between this and a neighbouring country. My learned Friend has, in the courfe of his addrets, put feveral questions to me, which I feel no difficulty in answering. In ftating the freedom and boldnets of difcution which in every period of its history has diftinguished this country, he afks me, what I would have done with relpect to the undaunted spirit and fearlefs intrepi. dity with which the British Prefs has never failed to exhibit, in their proper colours, the actions of tyrants and villains, whether foreign or domeftic? My learned Friend has done me but justice, when he has affumed, that my tentiments upon this tubject are thofe which he, and every honourable man, will feel with respect to

matters of that defcription. No man is more a friend to freedom of difcuffion, and the real liberty of the prefs, than I am. My learned Friend proceeds to ask, what I would have done with regard to the terms in which the first English newfpaper that was published in the reign of the glorious Queen Elizabeth, centured the tyrant who at that time threatened the liberties of Europe? what I would have done in regard to the ftrong and manly language in which the British prints attacked the ambitious and vain Louis the Fourteenth? In fine, what I would do, with regard to that feeling and energetic manner in which the atrocious crimes of the frantic Democrats of France were reprefented in public, and fubmitted to the fympathetic feelings of our countrymen; the glowing expreffions in which the maffacre of Toulon and Lyons; the invafion of the unoffending, and formerly happy Switzerland, and a long feries of crimes were held up to the indignation and abhorrence of generous Britons? By way of anfwer to thele queftions, I afk, what did I do? Did I item eager to come forward to folicit your verdict against the authors of tree and bold declamation? No. Even though the prints of this country were not, perhaps, always diftinguifhed for candour and inpartiality; though the bounds of prudence and moderation might have been fometimes overleapt; yet I reflected that the pallions of mankind were arouled by ftrange, and almost unparalleled crimes, and therefore that inflammatory language was palliated, if not excufed, in diiculfing thofe fubjects. I was aware of the delicacy with which the liberty of the preis ought to be touched; and therefore, unless in cafes where this liberty has been fcandalously abused, as in the prefent infance, I have never been anxious to difcover libellous matter in any publication. I refer my learned Friend to the fact; and this, I apprehend, is the best anfwer to his interrogatories that can poffibly be given. You have heard, Gentlemen, a great deal about the independence and intrepidity that has always diftinguished British Juries. Juries, the bulwark of the Constitution; the glorious and immoveable palladium of our liberties! My learned Friend here gave full fcope to the energy of his eloquence, and ingeniously endeavoured to impreis upon your minds, that he was combating the principles and arguments which I advanced. But, Gentlemen, I aver, that the principles and fentiments which he,

in the highest ftrain of impreffive eloquence, has now delivered, are, with very little variation, the fame with those which I, in humbler drefs, had before uttered. I agree with him in his account of the independent spirit of our ancestors, the rigid caution of former Juries, in matters relating to the freedom of the prefs and the liberty of the fubject. I agree with hun in the propriety of rousing the abhorrence and refentment of the people against crime by means of periodi cal publications. But ftill there exifts no little danger that this liberty will be abused in the prefent inftance: and it is my duty to check fuch abuse whenever it appears. I agree with my learned Friend, that the newlpapers have been a powerful inftrumentin diffeminating knowledge, and diffufing civilization; but he has, with the fame breath, justly stated, that thefe are at the fame time extremely liable to become the fources of much mifchief and diforder in the community; and, therefore, here again our fentiments exactly correfpond. You have not only then, Gentlemen, my affertion refpecting the danger and impolicy of paffing over in filence publications of a libellous tendency, but that affertion is corroborated by the powerful eloquence of my antagonist. Having thus ihortly turned your attention, Gentlemen, to the obfervations of my learned Friend, refpecting myself and my fentiments, I beg leave to trefpafs upon your patience for a few minutes, while I advert to the conftruction which he has endeavoured to affix to fome of the paffages which form the grounds of the prefent profecution. In one of these the Author fays, that "he was to erect an edifice to the glory of Bonaparte, and that he would take care to felect fuch materials as should be worthy of the Temple." I fubmit to the candid and impartial judgment of the Jury, whether these are not to be confidered as an ironical attack upon the First Conful, notwithstanding the ingenious glofs intended to be put upon them by the learned Counsel? But mark another paffage, I have no particular refentment against Bonaparte! let him be declared Emperor of the Gauls, and let his Apotheofis follow on the enfuing morning." Though the ingenuity of my learned Friend has endeavoured to make thofe expreflions refer to the Roman Emperors who were deified while till alive, yet it is hardly necessary for me to obferve, that they are evidently intended to apply to the cafe of Romulus, whofe deification,

"

every one acquainted with the Roman Hiftory knows, immediately followed upon his affaffination. There can be little doubt, therefore, that the Author intended to excite his countrymen to the affaffination of the First Conful of France. The learned Counfel has endeavoured to perfuade us, that the Ode, which alfo forms part of the grounds of the prefent profecution, is a mighty harmless compofition. The fentiments it contains, he avers, are intended not to apply to the First Conful of France, but to the infamous Jacobins whofe crimes deluged their country with blood. But when a parallel is inftituted between the fate of France under Bonaparte, and the state of Rome under Julius Cæfar, and when the poniard of Brutus is described as the laft refource of the Romans against the ufurpation of the latter, can any man who exercifes his judgment with impartiality, entertain a doubt refpecting the tendency of fuch a passage, which manifeftly is to encourage the difcontented to dispatch Bonaparte, as Brutus did Cæfar?-In vain does my ingenious friend argue, that no conclufions, detrimental to his client, can be drawn from his allusion to the conduct of Brutus, which has been admired in all ages. The application is clear to every unprejudiced understanding; and this, out of all question, fixes the charge of a libel upon its author. It has been attempted to be proved, that a manifett inconfittency appears, in afcribing fuch fentiments and views to this determined Royalift. Is it likely, it has been asked, that the refolute and conftant enemy of the Jacobins fhould entertain a particular retentment againit their deftroyer? My learned Friend has answered, No.

But let us confider the character of the publication, and the fituation of the author. That a French Royalift, ftrongly attached to the late Royal Family of France, fhould hate the person who, to its exclufion, has occupied that throne, appears to me far from improbable. That the author of the Ambigu, therefore, fhould be difpofed to vilify Bonaparte, notwithstanding his being the enemy of Jacobinifm, is certainly not fo unlikely as he would have us fuppofe.Bonaparte, therefore, mult, in the opinion of Mr. Peltier, be confidered as a vile ufurper, and not to be regarded by a firm partizan of the expelled family of Capet with a very favourable eye: in this view, therefore, the probability is rather on my fide. Your feelings of compaffion, and spirit of patriotifm, are

atfailed,

affailed, Gentlemen, in favour of this einigrant. The fame of this country for affording shelter and protection to the unfortunate, and the wretched condition of Mr. Peltier, driven by lawlefs villains from his home, with the barbarous murder of his family, have all been brought forward in the most glowing colours. I acknowledge the juftice and propriety of my friend's obfervations in this refpect; and I moreover affert, that this very profecution is a proof of that juftice and propriety. If the generofity and humanity that characterize Englishmen and the Englith Government had, for a moment, been forgotten, this man might have been delivered up to the perfon whom he has fatirized, instead of standing here to have the decifion of an impartial British Jury upon his conduct. But never, I truft, will Britons, while they endeavour to check improper conduct of every defcription, overleap the barriers of justice, nor forget what is due to the claims of compaffion and humanity. Gentlemen, you are to decide upon the evidence before you, without allowing more than their proper weight to the obfervations on either fide. My learned Friend has diverted your attention to the lenity and independence of our ancestors, in deciding upon any thing that might have a tendency to infringe the freedom of the prefs and the liberty of British fubjects. He has alfo expreffed his apprehensions left the time may come when we shall lofe fight of thofe principles. But if that period fhould unfortunately arrive, as he feems to dread, pity it is, that his moft eloquent, moft ingenious, and almost irrefiftible addrefs, has not been referved for an occafion when it would be fo loudly demanded."

Lord Ellenborough charged the Jury as follows:-"Gentlemen, it remains for me, with as much impartiality as I can, to fum up the evidence here as I do in other cafes. It will then be your duty to give a true verdict, according to the evidence, in compliance with the terms of your oath, and the attention you have uniformly exhibited, leaves no doubt that a fair and impatial verdict will be given. With regard, Gentlemen, to the law in cafes of libel, it is enacted, firit, that any attempt to disturb the peace of the community in any way, for inftance, by vilifying the Government or Religion of the country, is of a libellous nature: condly, an attempt to injure any individual in his perion, property, or reputa tion, is confidered in the eye of law as li

Se

bellous; and thirdly, is held to be libellous whatever has a tendency to vilify or injure in any manner perfons high in of◄ fice abroad. Let thefe principles of law then, Gentlemen, be applird to the cafe now before us. The first question that you have to confider refpects the publication of the papers on account of which the prefent profecution is commenced. From the evidence of the Publisher, who depofes that he had the management of the publication, and accounted to Mr. Peltier for all emoluments derived from it, there can be little doubt as to the Author. I need not ftate the evidence particularly, as no question appears to be started by either party on this head. The next point, then, for your decifion is, whether or not the expreffions faid to be libellous, are intended to apply to Bonaparte, and whether he is the Chief Magiftrate of the French Republic? That the paffages confidered by the profecutor as libellous, are directed against Bonaparte, appears to me beyond all doubt; and the latter propofition, viz. that he is the Chief Magistrate of France, is a matter of too much notoriety to require any comment. The third and last question that you are to try then, is, whether the paffages themselves are of a libellous nature? You have heard the construction which, in a speech of mast aftonishing eloquence and ingenuity, has been attempted to be put upon the expreffions in queftion. If, Gentlemen, there was any ambiguity-if the expieffions were capable of a favourable interpretation, I would moft willingly abide by that conftruction; and I have no doubt you also would feel every inclination to lean to the fide of mercy, if it could be done confiftently with juftice. But I apprehend, and I am required by law to ftate my opinion to you on the fubje&, that the words will not bear any fente, except the obvious one affixed to them by the Countel for the profecution. With regard to the expreffions, that " an edifice fhould be erected to the glory of Bonaparte, and that materials were to be provided worthy of the Temple,' there can exift no hesitation in an unprejudiced mind, that this was meant as an ironical attack upon the First Conful of France. From whence thefe materials were to be drawn, appears evidently from the other parts

of

the publication, where quotations are cited from ancient history, tending to provoke the affaffination of Bonaparte. Of this defcription, the alluion to the Apotheosis of Romulus, and the poniard of Brutus, muft clearly be

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »