Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

defendant, was the very paper which was composed and published ten years ago. As the persons who wrote and composed it, may be ashamed to have their names published, although I should not, and as they are tired of their opinious, although I am not, I shall not name them.

The jury was not permitted to decypher the whole meaning of the defendant, and to say what passed in his mind at the time.But it is the fashion of these times to cry down by bell, book, and candle" every man who takes up opinions that other people are tired of. The defendant who has published this address, has very great merit; the principles of it are just, and had they been clothed in better language, he could not employ his time better than by publishing it again. shall take the liberty of reading the latter part of this publication:

the throne? Shall he be branded with the charge of sedition, for only being a humble copier, and for republishing that which has been published ten years ago; and which, though circulated through every part of the country, has produced no sedition?-My client offered to produce a witness to prove, that this paper was originally composed by these gentlemen. I conceive he had a right to rebut the seditious purpose that has been ascribed to him, but this was refused. This is not all; for on the part of the prosecution, evidence was examined to show, out of the case itself and upon topics entirely extrinsic, the general disposition of the defendant. For that purpose they produced a witness to prove, that the defendant caused this paper to be distri Ibuted by a man wearing a cap on his head, on which were inscribed the words "liberty and equality." This might have, and I believe actually had, an effect upon the minds of the jury. Thus they received evidence to inflame, and nothing to extenuate the case on the part of the defendant.-I say that seditious intention is not matter of law, but matter of fact, and ought to have been left to the jury. These, my lords, are the observations that I have to submit to your lordships, and I have no doubt but your lordships will do justice between the defendant and the public

"Petition then, with one voice, my friends and countrymen, for that share in making your own laws to which, by the constitution, and the laws of nature, you are entitled, Pursue the only course which can ever effect any considerable reduction of debts and of taxes, materially advance the interests of manufactures and commerce!-In short be Englishmen! be free, prosperous, and happy!, and give your posterity the same cause to revere your memories, as you have to bless those progenitors who left you an inheritance in a free constitution!"

I say this is what any man may and ought to publish in and out of gaol, and I am persuaded, that the adoption of these principles alone can save this country. Give the English public the satisfaction of enjoying their happy and glorious constitution, and they will grapple in the defence of it, and no power under heaven will be sufficient to tear them from their allegiance. Our constitution is the sanctuary of English liberty, and no government will be able to equal it; for I am persuaded that it is destined, by the great Author of all nature, to be the happiest, the freest, and most glorious country in the world. It was by the intrigue and corrupt practices of courtiers, that the constitution of France was pulled down, and the constitution of this country may be pulled down by the

same means.

With regard to the time in which the defendant published this paper, I apprehend, my lords, that no objection can fairly be made on that head; for it is well known that some time before this, Mr. Grey had given notice of bringing forward a petition before parliament praying for a parliamentary reform. Now when this paper was originally written, there was a petition presented, praying for a parliamentary reform. This paper, this libel, as it is called, was originally composed and written by Mr. Pitt, the duke of Richmond, and other eminent persons who stand high in his majesty's favour! and shall the defendant be set on the pillory, for that which set them so near

Mr. Dayrell and Mr. Clark, proceeded on the same line of argument on the point of evidence. They maintained, that the London Gazette ought not to have been received as evidence that "divers" addresses had been presented to the king by various classes of his subjects; and secondly, that the evidence which was offered by the defendant, to show that he had no seditious purpose in publishing the address for a parliamentary reform, ought to have been received.

Mr. Attorney-General. My lords, I am very shortly to answer the two objections that have been made to the reports of the learned judge by my learned friends who are counsel for the defendant. I am perfectly ready to admit that if this Court shall think that there is any weight in these objections, the defendant ought unquestionably to have the full benefit of it. It is not enough that justice be administered, but the satisfactory administration of justice is an object of the first importance. The first objection now taken is, that sufficient evidence was not given to the Court in the case of a material averment; namely, to prove that addresses had been presented to the king by various bodies of his subjects. I conceive it would be extremely difficult to make out these objections as supported by any principle of law. The objection might be as well stated in this way, "How do you prove them to be addresses at all?" And until you prove that, you prove nothing. I thought when I heard this

But see the extract from major Cart wright's letter ante p. 1198, note.

nue to sell a book of this kind and cannot pretend to be ignorant

Mr. Erskine. My lords, I have said nothing upon the contents of that book. I shall reserve what remains for me to urge in favour of the defendant

Lord Kenyon. The business of the day is to examine into all the merits of this case. I wish to apprize all parties that all the business upon this subject is to be gone through.

objection first, it would embarrass the discussion at the other part of the case; and had I been aware of it, the better way would be to postpone the subject, because it is not only my duty to consider the objection, but because there is a great deal of authority upon the question: but I shall now, with your lordships permission, proceed upon the whole case. I was aware that objections might be offered to the proclamation, as being evidence of the act of his majesty, but this cannot be insisted upon with any effect. Nor can a better objection be started against the Gazette. If learned gentlemen are pleased to persist in these objections, I must tell them that they have to encounter, not only the uniform practice of this Court for one hundred years past, but also the clear decision of lord Holt, and that upon a principle which removes the present objection entirely; which is, that in the opinion of that learned judge it was a high misdemeanor for any person to notify an act which can only be done by the king, and that all legal means for that notification should be reserved for the king alone. The medium for that purpose is the Gazette. I will tell your lordships what I understand the Gazette to be. A gazette is a publication, evidence, and notification of a royal act, be it what it may, and all the public acts of his majesty are notified in the Gazette.

Having made these observations upon the evidence, I must now take notice of what my learned friend, Mr. Erskine, was pleased to throw out upon myself. He called me the servant of certain persons in power; an expression which he afterwards seemed to qualify, and to allow me to be the servant of the crown. I can only say that the sentiments which I entertained when it pleased his majesty to call for my services, I entertain now; I have often expressed them on questions of parliamentary reform, and on other subjects, and have differed, perhaps, from those who are highest in his majesty's confidence. That has never yet been the cause of the least uneasiness to me. I shall always retain the independence with which I commenced; and the moment I am called upon to act in a manner that is inconsistent with that spirit, that moment will I abandon the office which I now hold. As to the point of law respecting the evidence of the trial, I might be content with saying that Mr. Justice Wilson had no doubt upon the point, and all who had the pleasure to know that learned judge, admitted his merit, both as a lawyer and a man.-The nature of the evidence has been already stated with sufficient accuracy and precision, and I humbly conceive that every thing that can be necessary in this case to convey information to the Court, appears upon the face of the report. The defendant, your lordships see, has been convicted for selling a book called, " An Address to the Addressers," of the nature of which I am persuaded the defendant could not be ignorant and if a man will contit

Mr. Attorney General. I have already ob served that the defendant could not be ignorant of the tendency of the publication called "An Address to the Addressers." I believe he published the second libel with as much knowledge of the tendency of it, and with the same intent. And as to the observation made by my learned friend Mr. Erskine, or rather the question which he put to me "Whether I should think of prosecuting him for the opinions which he has sent into the world with his own name to them?" I will tell him candidly, that if he goes to the Freemason's Tavern, or to any other such public place, where such societies are held, with this paper in his possession, and with a label on his head or breast, with the words "Liberty and Equality" on it, and the cap of liberty on his head, I will prosecute EVEN HIM.

With regard to the question of a parlia mentary reform, a subject of which the second paper treats, I can only say, that it is one which ought to be more accurately explained than I have seen it yet, before I can form a distinct opinion on it. I know it is a subject of very weighty consideration, and has interested the minds of the wisest and best people in this country; but no man should be allowed to disturb the peace of a nation which enjoys the most free and happy constitution upon earth, and for which we ought to express our gratitude to God; for I verily believe that in all this world, since he framed it, there has not been established a government which for all political blessings can be compared with our own: whosoever therefore shall endeavour, by any means, to subvert it, or lessen the esteem which the people have for it, deserves to be severely punished. For my own part, 1 must confess freely that as to a reform, as it is called, of parliament, I think it an object of such magnitude, and involving points of the greatest difficulty, that I am afraid that a man possessed of the deepest penetration and the greatest political sagacity, will never, upon that subject, be able to give us an adequate consideration for the risk of any alteration. It is said that this paper was published ten years ago,

and that no complaint was then made against the tendency of it. But is the conduct of parliament ten years ago to be compared with the time when this paper was republished? The defendant, after seeing the effect of publishing and disseminating these pernicious doctrines all over the kingdom, comes forward with this paper, to assist the

spirit that was then raised, without having the fairness to state that it was a paper published ten years ago. What has been the conduct of the defendant? Why, that of miliciously stirring up and reviving doctrines that were dangerous to the constitution, at a time when it was likely that, if spread, they would do much mischief. What does he mean to prove? Does he mean to say, that in reality he had no seditious intention when he published this paper? Does he mean to say, thatbecause this paperwaspublishedbytheConstitutional society, the London Corresponding society, or any where else, that therefore his intentions in publishing the paper were inuocent?-My learned friend, Mr. Erskine, asked me whether I should prosecute him it he had, sent forth any thing with his name, concerning a reform of parliament. God forbid I should prosecute any man for temperately discussing that subject, or any other subject; but I will tell him as a friend, that he will deal out hard measures for himself, if he will undertake to be accountable before your lordships for every doctrine maintained by many individuals of the society of which he is a member, and to which he is an ornament. I will tell your lordships freely, that if my learned friend had published this paper under all the circumstances with which this defendant published it, I should have been a traitor to my country if I hesitated a moment in bringing him forward as a defendant before your lordships, as I have brought forward the present defendant; and I now ask of your fordships whether you think of him as I do. -As to the evidence which was preferred on the behalf of the defendant, at the trial, I say it would have proved nothing, for it could only amount to this; that this paper was published before, by somebody else;-what has that to do with this charge against the defendant? But your lordships are called upon now to hold this proposition;-that it is competent to one man to publish in a court of justice, the opinions of other people upon a libel with a view to show, that these other persons held the same doctrines as the defendant. Your lordships will see the length which this proposition leads to. If Mr. Erskine is to be allowed this for the defendant, I must be allowed something of the same sort for the prosecution. If he gives the opinion of some persons in favour of the paper, I shall give the opinion of juries upon the same doctrine; and then the defendant would be in a worse situation than if he had not offered that sort of evidence: therefore I think the learned judge was not only right in strictness of law, but also kind to the defendant in, rejecting this sort of evidence.

The next thing to be considered, is the law upon this question. What is the present limitation of what is called the liberty of the press? I say that under that limitation, this paper is a scandalous libel. I take the law with regard to the press to be this: That you

may discuss the most important points if you please: You may abuse the constitution if you please, and the general form of our government; provided you choose to be answerable in a court of law. Now I ask, is this paper, or is it not a scandalous and infamous libel, traducing and vilifying the existing magistracy of the country?-Now is this the way that the grievances of the people of this country, if they feel any, are to be redressed? "Parliaments chosen as they now are, and continuing for seven years as they now do, will ever be composed, for the most part of a few factions under the guidance of particular noblemen, perpetually contending for the power and emoluments of office. The common soldiery of these several factions, like that of all other standing armies, is made up of mercenaries from the most idle and profligate orders of the community. Who so idle as men of pleasure, and the vicious part of our nobility and gentry? Who so profligate as murdering nabobs, prostitute lawyers, and unprincipled adventurers, who, through the iniquity of corrupt elections, make their way into parlia ment, and there let out their tongues and their votes for hire?"

Is this treating parliament fairly? Is this merely informing the public of a fact, or is it a temperate commentary? Is the whole parlianment corrupt ? or are there not men among them, who by the blessing and providence of God, are such as will be praised by posterity, and perhaps make future ages wish they had such men among them as these are, to guide their counsels?-If persons will publish commentaries on parliament, let them do justice to its character and to the different men in it; and let them make a jury believe, that when they discuss any public matter, they discuss it temperately, and then a ques tion will never arise between any defendant and myself before your lordships.

One sentence more and I have done. It is said that Mr. Justice Wilson omitted something which he ought to have laid before the jury in favour of the defendant. I cannot possibly conceive how that learned judge could have done more for the defendant than he did; for, after summing up the whole of the evidence, he asked the jury this question. "Are you satisfied that the defendant published this paper with a seditious intent?" The jury said they were satisfied he published it with a seditious intent, and therefore they found the defendant guilty.

These, my lords, are all the observations I have to submit. With regard to myself, I can only say, that I have done my duty as my conscience has directed me, and if I satisfy that, I shall not give myself trouble about what some people may think of me.

Mr. Erskine. My lords, am I now allowed to address your lordships for the defendant? .

Lord Kenyon. I take the rule to be, that the advocate for the prisoner commences the case and speaks generally, either against judg

[ocr errors]

case.

ment, or in mitigation of punishment, and but shall leave them entirely on the character therefore the attorney-general is to speak last. which that gentleman has carried with him

Mr. Erskine. I apprehend, my lords, that to the grave. I am very sorry at some of the I am not in the situation in which your lord remarks that have been made on the reports ship seems to think I am. I think I have a of the judges. The character of the judges is right to speak in mitigation.

public property, and if they have done any Lord Kenyon. I think the major part of thing amiss, they ought to be censured. But your address, Mr. Erskine, was in mitigation if not, their characters ought to be respected; of punishment. Almost the whole of it ap- otherwise the most mischievous consequences peared to be so. However, as you desire it, will arise to the public. I do not aim this at you will now go on in mitigation of punish- | any body, I assure you, but I speak it from ment.

the conviction of my own mind, and feel Mr. Erskine. That is not the point at all, myself bound to say thus much. my lord. The question is, whether I am not It cannot but occur to every person's obserto hear the attorney-general upon the whole vation, that as long as parties exist in the matter before the Court, and reply?

country, (and perhaps it is for the good of the Lord Kenyon. If there is a rule to guide country that parties should exist to a certain the Court, and I understand there is, as I degree, because they keep ministers on their have stated, you are not, strictly speaking, guard in their conduct), they will have their entitled to proceed. We certainly shall not friends and adherents. A great political chapronounce judgment to day, but all the busi- racter, who held a high situation, in this ness from the bar must be finished in this country some years ago, but who is now dead,

You have rejected the idea of moving used to say that ministers were the better for in arrest of judgment; and if you have any being now and then a little peppered and thing to address to the Court in mitigation salted. And while these parties exist, they of punishment, I wish you would now be so will have their friendships and attachments, good as to say it.

which will sometimes dispose them to wander Mr. Erskine. The two papers of which from argument to declamation. And this is the defendant stands charged, are distinct very often the case with respect to questions and separate. I shall not address the Court relating to libels. upon the first, because there are judgments The present question seems to lie in the upon that publication already. I shall there- least compass in the world, and to relate to fore leave my client upon that part of his case' points so long and so clearly settled, that no entirely to the mercy of the Court, seeing as doubt can remain with respect to them. Both they do, that he has done every thing in his the points, to my mind, appear as clear as power to extenuate, for he discontinued the the sun. No man ever yet doubted but that sale on the instant it was complained of. the Gazette was evidence of all matters of With regard to the other publication, unques- state. And therefore I ain perfectly satisfied tionably he stands in a different situation; for that the opinion of sir John Wilson, formed at by publishing the second paper, he certainly the trial, was perfectly correct. meant nothing but that which as a subject of Another question is, whether something or this country he thought he might legally do, another ought not to have been admitted in not seeking to produce or occasion any of the evidence that was refused by the learned anarchy or confusion which has been so judge at the assizes. And it was said that if much talked of. If I cannot say any thing that evidence bad been admitted, it would farther on the point of law, I must leave my have gone to the innocence of the defendant. client in your lordships' hands.

In answer to that, I can only say, that this Lord Kenyon. I hope that this doctrine evidence which was not admitted, is not to will never go forth into the world, that a man be found in the judge's report, and our determay safely and legally publish what has been mination must proceed on whiat appears on published before, provided it has not been the the face of the report. No motion in arrest subject of a criminal prosecution in a court of judgment can be made upon account of of justice. If any man adopts that doctrine, either of these two points as far as I can see. his judgment must be very much perverted I verily believe no one man can entertain a indeed. All the mischief may be done that a doubt but that when four days are past, the publication can do, if no legal steps can be season for moving for a new trial is over. taken till somebody has been arrested upon It is competent after that, and any time that account.

before judgment, to move in arrest of judg, I hope that the transactions of this day, and ment, and if the reasons which are adduced some of the transactions of this term, will not by the counsel shall appear to the Court to bé quoted as the authorities for the Court to have weight, they will interfere. And it when proceed by: I am extremely sorry that any , the defendant is brought up for judgment, thing has been applied to this case, which and no application is made on his part, yet if did not arise out of the judge's report. I will the Court perceive any error in the report, say nothing of the character of the late sir the Court will interpose, as in mercy they John Wilson, who tried these informations; ought. nor will I make any remarks on his reports, Mr. Justice Ashhurst said, he entirely conVOL. XXII.

4 K

we

curred in opinion with lord Kenyon on both of such a description as the author of this

! points. I think, said he, the Gazette was publication. The general tendency of this properly admitted to prove that addresses had libel is to bring his majesty's proclamation been presented to the king in consequence of into contempt, and to insinuate that these adhis most gracious proclamation and I am , dresses did not containte genuine sentiments also of opinion that the evidence which was of the loyalty of his majesty's subjects, but refused by the learned judge on the trial of that they had been set on tool by corrupt and the other information was properly rejected. interested men :-that the system of our goIt has been said that if this paper is a libel vernment was a system of tyranny and opnow, it was also a libel ten years ago. I am pression ;-and that the formation of it was not certain of the truth of that proposition. radically bad, and wanting reformation ;-and I conceive that a writing may be a libel at that a parliamentary reform was to be brought one time which is not so at another.

about by the people only, and not by the parMr. Justice Buller. The only two cases liament of Great Britain. And it daringly which apply to the present, are the king and recommends a national convention to be held, Gough, and the King and Atkinson. In the first as the proper means of reform. This publiof these two cases, lord Mansfield said, cation also tends to traduce and vility all must either grant a new trial, or defer judg- kingly governments, in this and all the counment for ever." The result of these two tries of Europe, and boldly calls on the subcases is no more than this; if you do not jects of this kingdom to insurrection and remove for a new trial within four days, you volt; and insinuates that the example of a cannot be heard at all. The only resource neighbouring nation was proper to be followed left is either to move in arrest of judgment in this. (I take it that it is good time to move in arrest This paper falls very little short of high of judgment at any time before judgment is treason, and certainly stands in the very first pronounced), or you may address yourself to rank of sedition. the Court in mitigation of punishment. And The second of these libels most grossly and if in the course of that address, the Court see impudently asperses the parliament of this that injustice was done, they will interfere, kingdom, and brands them with the imputabut not otherwise.

tion of venality and corruption, and calls for As to the question whether the Gazette is a parliamentary reform. As to the mode by good evidence to prove that addresses were pre- which that reform was to be conducted, this sented to the king, I think that can hardly be paper does not so largely enter into it; that made a question. At the same time I am of had been sufficiently pointed out by the for. opinion that was an immaterial averment in mer publication, intituled “ An Address to the the information, and that therefore it was un- Addressers,” which recommends it to be done necessary to give evidence of it.

by a national convention. The bloody adAs to the second objection I think there is visers of such a measure have been acting no force in it; but I must not enter into it, as a scene in a neighbouring country, which it does not arisc out of the report, and I con- when we look upon we have the strongest ceive we are bound to confine ourselves to the reason to congratulate ourselves on our own report.

condition when compared with the tyranny, Mr. Justice Grose was of the same opinion. rapine, murder, and desolation, which have

Lord Kenyon. The defendant must be re- ravaged that unfortunate country. manded.

It has been alleged, in extenuation of your

crime, that you were not the author or The defendant was accordingly, as before, the first publisher of this pamphlet. But taken to the King's-bench prison.-On the how does that apply in your favour Wednesday following he was again brought up Was it not enough that such a horrid prodixcto receive the judgment of the Court.

tion had been once stilled in the birth ? and The Attorney General moved the Court for must you foster and nourish the unnatural and judgment.

diabolical offspring, and give it fresh life and Mr. Justice Ashhurst. Daniel Holt, you have existence? Though the nation in general had been tried and found guilty on two several in- shown their abhorrence and detestation of the dictments for printing and publishing two very doctrines contained in this publication, yet atrocious libels; the one intituled“ An Address you were determined to cram it down the to the Addressers"and the other intituled“ An throats of his majesty's subjects. Address to the Tradesmen, Mechanics, La- What has been said in extenuation for the bourers, and other Inhabitants of the town of second publication can stand you in little Newark, on the subject of a parliamentary re-stead ; with respect to the subject of the form.”

publication, that it was published ten years The first of these libels alludes to his ma- ago, and that you only re-published it, and jesty's most gracious proclamation, which is therefore are innocent, and that it could only in every body's memory, and to the addresses mean the parliament which then existed, and of loyalty sent from all parts of the kingdom not the present parliament of Great Britain. in consequence of it. These loyal addresses Let any man of common sense take that pa. very much counteracted the designs of men per in his hand, and say, whether the utmost

« VorigeDoorgaan »