and read. It was contained in a pamphlet entitled, An Address to the Reformers, printed with her name to it. The first count set out the following alleged libellous matter:-" To talk about the British constitution, is, in my opinion, a sure proof of dishonesty. Britain has no constitution. If we speak of the Spanish constitution, we have something tangible; there is a substance and meaning as well as a sound. In Britain there is nothing constituted but corruption in the system of government. Our very laws are. corrupt and partial, both in themselves and in their administration. In fact, corruption, as notorious as the sun at noon-day,' is an avowed part of the system, and is denominated the necessary oil for the wheels of the government. It is most pernicious oil to the interests of the people." The second count set out the following matter:"Reform will be obtained when the existing authorities have no longer the power to withhold it, and not before. We shall gain it as early without petitioning as with it, and I would again put forward my opinion that some thing more than a petitioning attitude is necessary. At this moment I would not say a word about insurrection, but I would strongly recommend union, activity, and co-operation. Be ready and steady to meet any concurrent circumstance."

Mr Cooper conceived that this publication was altogether unworthy of notice, and could never have done any harm, but for the prosecution now in stituted. Would it ever have come under consideration of the Jury (a publication five hundred times greater than any it could otherwise have hoped to arrive at ;) would it ever have been canvassed, and discussed, and consider ed, and printed in half a dozen shapes, and made palatable and readable by admixture with matter more interest ing than itself, but for the base, sor

did, prying, yet silly conduct of the soi-disant Constitutional Society, and their most worthy emissary-that en lightened judge of libel or no libelthe informer Rignall, the ci-devant honourable officer of his Majesty's customs? Really, if the publication of the libel was a crime, the prosecutors themselves were the most eminent culprits. And they were so active too, so earnest, so zealous for the common weal! Here was a government, with no trifling powers at its back; bucklered with soldiers, with police magis trates, and with lawyers; able, one would think, to contend, even unallied, with half a dozen wretched scribblers; but no, the generous, disinterested, noble-minded Association, "burning to bleed in battles not their own," stepped forward to meddle in that which no way concerned them. Why all this was no doubt very loyal and very public spirited; but might it not be carried so far as to be a little impertinent? Such particular attention did sometimes become troublesome and there were circumstances which made its convenience in the present case a little doubtful. Why, Mr Car, lile's shop did not stand in a corner It was known; and the present libel (as it was called) was known to the law officers of the Crown. Either the Attorney and Solicitor-General had done their duty, or they had not. It was to be presumed that they had done their duty; and they did not stand forward as prosecutors upon the present occasion. In fact, the publi cation impeached was not deemed by the Attorney-General to be worth his attention; a fortiori, then, was it worth the attention of the Court? What! to ask a jury to find that to be a libel which even the law officers of the Crown could not find to be a libel? Surely (even for a Constitutional Society) that was too impudent a de mand. But really the thing went furs

ther; for there was no evidence of any sale of the work in question, except to the agents of the Association; no proof of vending, except that into which the defendant had been seduced by the spies employed to destroy her. Was it possible that a British jury would permit a society first to gull men into the commission of crime, and then to prosecute them for it? The tempters turning accusers!-Good Heaven! such conduct was characteristic of devils, not of men ; but the learned counsel would drop the precious society altogether; they were really too mean for any thing stronger than ridicule. The learned counsel urged the general inexpediency of proceedings of this nature. Prosecution for state libel was neither wise nor necessary. It was mischievous, inasmuch as it invariably strengthened every opinion against which it was directed; it was mischievous, because it attract ed a hundred readers to the libel, when, let it alone, and not ten would have been found. Governments were not endangered by sixpenny pamphlets. Rome had not fallen a victim to libels. Athens had not been levelled by a paper war. Rousseau, Helvetius, and Voltaire, had been charged with giving birth to the French Revolution but take away the corruption of the Court, the oppressions of the nobility, the licentiousness of the rich, and the wretchedness of the poor; and Rousseau and Helvetius might have written themselves blind before a hand had been raised in furtherance of their doctrines, before an ear would have taken the trouble to listen to them.

Mr Justice Best went carefully into the contents of the pamphlet, and expressed his decided opinion, that it was a libel of the most dangerous description.

The Jury, after a few moments' consultation, left the Court at half past four o'clock.

VOL. XIV. PART II.

When the Jury had been out an hour, a written communication was delivered from their Foreman to Mr Justice Best. Upon reading the paper, his Lordship directed that the Jury should be conducted into Court, and, on their assembling in the box, inquired if there was any thing in which he could assist them.

cannot

Foreman. My lord, we agree; there is no probability of our doing so.

Mr Justice Best.-I am sorry for it, gentlemen; but I cannot assist you.

A Juryman. My lord, I think the Foreman was premature in troubling your lordship with a little more discussion we might have agreed.

Another Juryman said-My lord, there is obstinacy.

Second Juryman.-This is invidious. I am not the only one who stands out; there are four of us.

The Foreman expressed his opinion that they should not agree.

Mr Justice Best.-Gentlemen, you must see the impropriety of this public discussion; you had better retire, and endeavour to agree among yourselves.

The Jury again retired, and at eight o'clock desired their families might be informed that it was not likely they would return home before the morn ing.

Mr Justice Holroyd, finding that the Jury could not agree, and the counsel on both sides refusing to come to any terms, sent a communication to the former, suggesting the propriety of withdrawing a Juror, which the gentlemen, after some little discussion, consented to. The Jury were much exhausted during the night, and frequently applied for refreshments,which, of course, could not be granted.

Next day the Jury having declared that they were equally unable to agree, a negotiation took place, and it was

Ꭰ

agreed that they should be discharged without returning a verdict.

JOHN HUNT FOR LIBEL ON THE

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Court of King's Bench, Feb. 21.

The defendant in this case is the proprietor of the Examiner weekly newspaper, and the present was an information filed against him by the Attorney-General, for a libel in that paper, on the 24th of July last, reflecting on the House of Commons.

The alleged libel, after describing the majority of the members as greedy place-hunters, pensioners, and needy adventurers, asserted that the House contained a far greater number of public criminals than public guardians, &c. &c. This was the libel complained of.

The Attorney-General stated the case to the Jury, and urged the mis. chievous tendency of such publications as that now brought under their consideration. He disclaimed any personal motives in this prosecution; he now proceeded against the defendant in the discharge of his public duty; and having done his duty, he now called upon the Jury to discharge theirs.

The usual proof of publication, and of the defendant being proprietor of the paper in question, was put in,

The defendant proceeded to address the Jury in his own defence, and read a long written paper, in which he disclaimed any other motive than a wish to benefit the public; he denied that he had libelled the House of Commons, or that he had any intention of vilifying and degrading it; he had only applied the same epithets, and given the same description of it, as had previously been done by many political characters.

The Chief Justice, in summing up, commented on the nature and mischie vous tendency of the publication in question, and declared himself decidedly of opinion that it was a libel.

The Jury retired, and after being out some time, they came into Court, and put a question to his lordship, as to the necessity of there being a proof of malice to constitute the offence.

The Chief Justice said, the motive of a man's act must be inferred from the effect which his act was likely to have. If a man were wilfully to do an act which might in its effect cause the death of another, he must be presumed to have malice in his heart. The Jury again retired, and in a few minutes returned with a verdict of Guilty.

May 14.

Mr Denman moved for a rule to set aside the trial, on the ground that two of the Jurymen had not been originally summoned. After a good deal of discussion, the Lord Chief Justice stated, that this could not be a legal ground, unless some injustice could be proved to have been suffered in consequence. Rule refused.

May 28,

Mr Hunt was brought up for judg ment. He began with protesting against the nomination of the Jury by the Master of the Crown-office; but he was told, that this was a point with which the Court had nothing to do, and which could only be amended by the legislature.

Mr Hunt said, then he must state his motives for publishing the supposed libel. The Jury had found by their verdict, that his object was to bring the House of Commons into ha tred and contempt. He must again, as he did at the trial, deliberately af

firm, that far from wishing to bring that branch of the legislature into hatred and contempt, he had always entertained the highest respect for that portion of the Constitution. It was not at the branch, but at the corruptions, which threatened to destroy both branch and tree, that he aimed his humble efforts; and if the result of his trial depended upon the real state of his feelings, and the motives of his conduct, the Court would have no more right to send him to prison, than to incarcerate the industrious gardener, who, at this season, was striving to protect his fruit-trees from blight and injury. His motives for putting forth the offending matter, originated in a belief that such calls upon the public attention might give rise to measures which would rescue the House of Commons from that very hatred and contempt, into which he believed it was rapidly declining. If he was wrong in this opinion, he was wrong with many eminent British statesmen, one of whom, Lord Chatham, was so strongly convinced of the corruptions of Parliament, that he deemed them no longer endurable, and solemnly asserted, that unless they were reformed from within, they would be reformed from without with a vengeance. The truth of the paragraph prosecuted had not been controverted, and therefore how could a man's motives be fairly impeached, when he was found only putting forth well-known facts respecting one of the public institutions? He would venture to as sert, that no public writer, still less the humble individual before the Court, could possibly bring an upright and a truly constitutional House of Commons into hatred and contempt, because, under such a state of things, the opinions of the writer must be ut. terly disregarded. It seemed, that it was only the public exposure of the

corruptions and improper practices of that House, which even one of its own most eminent speakers had denounced as notorious, which constituted his present offence. In saying that the sale of seats was a common practice-that the House was filled with needy adventurers in the Parliamentary market, he merely echoed the language of some of its own distinguished members.

The Chief Justice.-Consistently with our duty as Judges, we cannot allow any of the branches of the legislature to be thus defamed.

Mr Hunt said, that he was merely putting the case hypothetically; and if he only echoed the opinions of the members of the House itself, publicly expressed, surely the liberty of the press permitted him so to do.

Mr Justice Best. We don't know what passes in the House of Com

mons.

Mr Justice Bayley.-The House of Commons has peculiar privileges, and its members may say in that House what would not be permitted out of it. In my Lord Abingdon's and Mr Creevey's cases, it was held, that even those who have the privilege of Parliament, may not reiterate out of Parliament what the privileges of the House might warrant within its walls.

Mr Hunt desired it to be understood, that in publishing the supposed libel, he was doing no more than what he conceived to be a publication of the truth. As a proof of that, nothing had been offered on the other side to shew the falsehood of his statements. He had done no more than what he conceived to be his duty; and no sentence that the Court could pronounce, should repress his determination to speak the language of truth, because he was convinced, that a want of public spirit, even in the most humble individual, was the greatest evil that could befal the British nation. He had long been

satisfied, that the British nation could never become a flourishing, or remain a great or respectable people, without an adequate reform in Parliament; and he should deem himself below contempt, if the fear of that punishment about to be inflicted, should ever deter him from raising his feeble voice in support of such a change in the constitution of Parliament, as would make it the constitutional organ of the people, instead of being a well-contrived instrument for the advancement of individual and selfish interests. He now fearlessly awaited the judgment of the Court.

The Solicitor-General shortly replied, by admitting the lawful exercise of the liberty of the press, and temper. ately animadverting on the character and conduct of that branch of the legislature, but insisted on the necessity of abstaining from all irreverent and indecorous terms, disrespectful and in sulting to the House of Commons, and defamatory of its political character.

Mr Justice Bayley, after a short pause, delivered the judgment of the Court. The law, the learned Judge said, licenced fair argument and reasonable discussion; but the libel in question stated, in language of general declamation, not arguments, but conclusions. The respect professed by the defendant for the House of Commons was a contradiction in terms, for what respect could be felt for a House of Commons such as he had described? The sentence of the Court was, that the defendant should be imprisoned in the House of Correction, Coldbath-fields, for a term of one year; to give securities, at the end of that period, for his good behaviour du ring three years himself in 500/., and two other persons in 2501. each.

DOLBY FOR Libel, at the insTANCE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL Associa

TION.

Court of King's Bench, Dec. 14.

Before the case was entered upon, Mr Scarlett put in an objection to the Jury, that Alderman Garratt, the Sheriff by whom it had been struck, was a member of the Constitutional Association, and was therefore a prosecutor. After some discussion, William Fisher and Francis Tatton, Esqrs. were named to try this question.

Mr Scarlett addressed a few words to the Jury, merely to inform them of the question they had to decide. Mr Alderman Garratt, the present Sheriff, in the course of his duty, returned the Common Jury; and he (the Alderman) was member of a society calling itself "Constitutional," and prosecuting the present indictment. That Mr Garratt was a member of that society, would be distinctly proved. His name, in fact, appeared in a list of subscribers furnished by the solicitor for the prosecution, to the solicitor of the defendant; and that list had since been printed and made public. The Alderman was a subscriber at the commencement of the prosecution; but something would be set up about his having since withdrawn his

name.

That something so set up, (Mr Scarlett) should at once put down. If Mr Garratt had withdrawn his name from the lists, he had not withdrawn his money from the funds of the society; and the money was the sinew which enabled the society to act. A partner could never cease to be a partner, so long as he left his money in the firm; and a partner was liable, even after he withdrew, throughout those transactions which had been undertaken in his time of office.