Page images
PDF
EPUB

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, reflect ing 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 ven

geance. 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 assert, 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 utterly disregarded. It seemed, that it was only the public exposure of the

[ocr errors]

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.

He

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. 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 250l. each.

DOLBY FOR Libel, at the INSTÂNCÉ 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 prosecu tor. 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, he (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.

William Nettlefold being called and examined, said, I am attorney to the defendant in this case. I appeared at the Crown-office, to strike the Special Jury, and I then demanded from Mr Murray a list of the members and subscribers of the Constitutional Society. Mr Murray admitted that the society were the prosecutors, and sent me, on the 29th of May, the list I have in my hand. In that list I find the name of Garratt occurring twice. There is a There is a Sir George Garratt, and a John Garratt, styled an Alderman. Opposite to Mr John Garratt's name, there ap. pears a subscription of 5l. 5s. I have no doubt that the Mr John Garratt, there named, is the present Sheriff.

John Roberts knew the person of Alderman Garratt, and was at Guildhall at the time when the alderman was chosen Sheriff: At the conclusion of the first day's poll, Mr Garratt stated that he had been a member of the "Constitutional Association;" but that, since he had been chosen alderman, he had thought it incompatible with his duty to remain among them; and he had therefore ceased to be a member. Witness was at Guildhall on several following days during the poll for Sheriffs; and either on the first or second day after that to which he had already alluded, he heard Alderman Garratt retract his former declaration.

The witness was pressed upon his cross-examination, and upon his reexamination, and also by the Judge, to give the words which Mr Garratt had used; but he could only, he said, give the sum and substance. Being taxed, on a subsequent day, with his declaration, that he had abandoned the Bridge-street Society, Mr Alderman Garratt did retract that declaration.

Mr Gurney, considering that the Sheriff had really nothing to do with the choice of the jury, was a little surprised at the course which Mr Scarlett had taken. The objection, if it could

be made out, was, notwithstanding, sufficient. The learned gentleman then commented upon the inconclusive nature of the evidence adduced, and proposed to set the matter completely at rest, by calling John Garratt, Esq. Alderman and Sheriff.

Mr Scarlett submitted, that Mr Gar ratt was not a competent witness. The objection being to the Sheriff's return, the Sheriff could not in person give support to his own act. Besides, by supporting Mr Gurney's case, and obviating his (Mr Scarlett's) objection, Mr Garratt would further the indict ment, of which he was a prosecutor.

The Lord Chief Justice said, that he would endeavour, if possible, to recollect some authority.

Mr Scarlett confessed that he could furnish none.

Mr Tindall, during a pause of some minutes which ensued, observed, that jurymen had been allowed to give evidence as to their own competency.

The Lord Chief Justice thought that the cases were dissimilar.

No authority whatever occurring upon the point, the learned counsel were driven back to argument.

Mr Gurney contended, that the question before the triers was merely a collateral issue, and an issue in which Mr Garratt could have no interest.

The Lord Chief Justice.-I think not.

Mr Scarlett begged to be understood, in what he was about to say, as casting no imputation upon Mr Alderman Garratt. To shew that he meant any thing rather than an offence, he would begin with citing a case, in which a namesake of his own, a man named Robert Scarlett, had been the subject of criminal prosecution in a court of justice. The case, which appeared in Coke's Reports, was this: Robert Scarlett became a member of the Grand Jury of the county of Essex; and he was indicted before the

Court of Star-Chamber, upon a charge of having so become a member of the Grand Jury, to aid in the finding of certain indictments, in which he (R. Scarlett) was personally interested. It appeared, therefore, that if a person, knowing himself to be interested, voluntarily, and by his own seeking, did that office which the law required should be performed by an impartial hand, he subjected himself, for such act, to public prosecution. Now, put the case that a man became Sheriff, in order, by returning particular jurors, to aid and support a particular indictment, he would, for so becoming sheriff, be actually punishable; and such a sheriff (the case was merely a case supposed) would clearly have an interest in a collateral issue like the present. He would be called to give evidence in a collateral issue, when the effect of his own evidence might be to purge himself from misdemeanour.

The Lord Chief Justice.-Supposing such a case, Mr Scarlett, as you have imagined, could the verdict upon the collateral issue be admitted afterwards as evidence upon an indictment? Mr Scarlett clearly apprehended that it might. The issue would be tried before a court of competent jurisdiction; a verdict of acquittal would be an answer to the indictment; and therefore a verdict of guilty would be evidence. Such a verdict would not only be evidence, but conclusive evidence. A court of law must take it in the same way that the House of Lords took the verdicts of ecclesiastical courts, without reference to the proceedings upon which those verdicts had been obtained.

The Lord Chief Justice, in the absence of all authority, thought the safer course would be to treat the witness as incompetent. He by no means meant to pledge himself as to the law upon the point, and wished distinctly

to be understood that his decision could afford no precedent. The question deserved much serious consideration, and he was only desirous, at present, of taking the safer side.

Mr Scarlett merely understood that Mr Gurney withdrew his witness on account of the novelty and uncertainty of the case.

Mr Gurney.-Certainly. Call Mr Sharp.

Mr Sharp got into the box.

Mr Scarlett. I mean to object to you too. You are a prosecutor in this case?

Witness. I apprehend that there can be no doubt of that.

Mr Scarlett. I apprehend, my Lord, that it is the witness's interest to complete that which has been begun by the Sheriff.

Mr Gurney said, that the point was a good joke; but his learned friend could not be serious.

Mr Scarlett was quite serious.

Lord Chief Justice.-I think, Mr Scarlett, you are going too far. Such an objection would exclude every witness.

Mr Sharp was then examined by Mr Gurney.

Have you attended every meeting of the committee of the Constitutional Society since January last?—I have.

In the months of May and June was Mr John Garratt a member of the society?-In May certainly, and, I think, in June.

Did he cease to be a member some time before he was elected Sheriff?Yes.

Had he ever attended any meeting of the society?—No.

Has he done any thing but give 51. 5s. ?-Nothing.

Cross-examined by Mr Scarlett.What are you?-I am the honorary assistant secretary to the Association.

You do not mean to say that that is

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »