Star. — London, England, 1820-03-24 00:00:00

r7.4;tance. Air. Hunt made no effort to promote resistance, qt ite tite contrary ; all his recommendations were pacific. He did not think there was any hissing or hooting at the military--. the people scLin•Nl quite orderly; but there might have been hiising without his observing the circumstance. In answer to criestions from the Learned Judge, he said he suv nothing done by the persons engaged in the Meeting to pro d-tee distuitaatice. At the hooting and hiising at the Police Of fize, Mr. hunt and Mr. Johnson did not interfere. The hissing in that spot did not last lung. The carriage in which Mr. Hunt %v c, appeared to have the horses led; thy certainty gave no orders to stop the It noes when before the Police Office. Mr. i hint was coatiou,illy, and very earnestly, exhorting the multi tude to v.:man: quiet ; after the appearance of the military, he c.r rested Ilacnt not to rnisr, and begged that if they wanted to hi:n they be permitted. He said this as the military advanced to the hu.sting.:. He thought that Mr. Johnson did out his L.l:id to prevent the hissing at the Police Wire and h. St.s, but not :o.vear positiv,l7 At hiVi-itst !dyc o'clock, adlourntil till to-morrow. `•everai witnesses remaie still to be examincd. The Trial is at.% expected to terininlnte 'oeforr Saturday or Monday next. TRIAL OF SIR FRANCIS BURDETT. T.EICESTER, THURSDAY, MARCH 23. This long expected and itnpo!lant case came on to be tried this day, before Mr. Justice 13cst and a Spe cial Jury. File Court was immensely crowded. Eve: y vacant place en the Bench was filled with persons of di ai::ction of the county, among whom were Lord DE.:nron, Lady PALK, Lady ELIZA BE I II NORMAN, I..ady NoEL, the mother of Lady BYRON, and numerous other persons of rank, t.:ge,her with most of the Magistrates of the County. About a quarter past nine o'clock, loud huzzas on the part of the populace outside the Court announced the approach of Sir FRANCIS BURDETT; and in a few minutes after the Baronet entered the Court, accom panied by a friend, and took his seat at the Barristers' table, nearly under the Bench. _ _ Mr. Justice BEST having taken his seat on the Bench, the following Gentlemen were chosen as the Edward Farnham, of Quorndon, Esq. Henry Gretn, of Rualston, Esq. Thomas Wright, of Lubbciihain, Esq. John Ilrycock, of Cros , ton, Esq. Henry D. Colenia;i, of Cidley, Esq. Valentine Gretn, of Normanton Heath, Esq. Frederick NVilliarti Wollaston, of Shanton, kisq. Chzinctit Whistanley, of Branston, Esq. F: - .incri Forrester, of Sornerby, Esq. Julia Adams, of Lodingstone, Esq. James Pickering Ord, of West Lambton, Esq. Jchu Goodacre, of Ullesthorpe, Esq. Mr. BALGUY opened the case to the Jury. He said this was an Information filed by the ArronNEY ENLRA L a n •rainst Sir FR AN C IS BURDETT, fo r a Lib e l against his SIAJCSTY'S Government. I'he Information set forth, that Sir Francis Burdett, late of V. - ettninster, in the County of Middlesex, Bart. being a sccliti uLs, n.alicious, and ill-disposed person, and unlawfully and mali ciously devising and intending to raise and excite discontent, dis affection, and sedition, among the liege subjects of our Lord the King, and particularly among the soldiers of our said Lord the King; and to move and excite the liege subjects of our said Lord the King to hatted and dislike of the Government of this Leann ; and to insinuate, and cause it to he believed, that divers of tl.e subjects of our said Lord the King had been inhumanly cat down, manned, and killed, by certain troops of our said Lord itee King. The Information then went on to state, that the said Sir Francis 13urtiLtt, Bart. did, on the £2d day of August last, at LaJghborough, in the County of Leicester. unlawfully and ma liciousiy compose and write and publish, and cause to be coin pt.std, writt , :n, and published, a certain scandalous, malicious, and seditious libel of and concerning the Government, and the troops of our said Lord the King. Mr. Serjeant VAUGIIAN said, that he rose in obe-1 dience to the duty which devolved upon him as Coun sel fur the Crown, to address the Court and the Jury upon the information which had just been read—an information filed by his Majesty's Attorney. General against the defendant, Sir Francis Burdett. When lie considered the nature of the indictment, it was not matter of surprise that this trial should create so much interest. The Law Officers of the Crown had thought fit to bring to trial a Gentleman of ancient family, of large fortune, of extraordinary talents, who for many years had been the Representative, and was now the favourite Candidate of the niost populous City in the Empire, upon a charge of writing a scan dalous and malicious libel, with intent to excite odium and indignation against the Government of the Coun try. If subtlety of argument, or extraordinary elo ciuence, were necessary to convince the Jury that the leaer in question had such a tendency, he (Mr. Ser- 1 'leant Vaughan) should regret that it had fallen to his •int to state the nature of the indictment. Ile had but one direct course to pursue, and the .lury but one plain and easy, though serious, conclusion to ar rive at. He could not contemplate two plainer ques tions than those which twelve men were now called upon to determine—first, whether the defendant, Sir Francis Burdett, published the letter in question ? and secondly, whether it was of that seditious nature charged in the indictment? It was right and fair tt take an accurate view of the charge. The infornta- Can charged Sir Francis Burdett, being an ill-dis posed person, with publishing and writing a sedi tious and malicious libel, with intent to create discontent, disaffection, and sedition against the Governmeen and the soldiers in particular, by causing it to be believed, that on a certain day mentioned in that indictment, certain soldiers of oer Lord the King did kill some of his Majesty's subjects. To convict the defendant. the Jury must be convinced that the publication had a tendency to excite disaffection among the people in general, and tleat it related to the soldiers and the Government. When inquiring into the intention of a party, which was, properly speaking, a question between man an d his CREATOR, it was uncharitable to say that we ought to judge of the intention by the acts and de clai etion of the party. If, upon a clear view of the case, it appeared that the letter in question had a (direct tendency to excite what was charged in that indictment, it was the d uty of the Jury to decide such was the intention of the party ; and on that , enound only they were )ustiaed, and ought, in the '.Durst discharge of their duty, to find a verdict of Guilty against the defendant, as every man was sup- Penni to contemplate his own act, and must be an swei able for it. Now came the subject of the prose nnnien. It was a Letter addressed to the Electors of Westminster, dated Kirby Hall, the ‘.,)2d of August, 819, r; dative to a Meeting which took place in Man-, hester on the 16th of August, which was now a eeestion trying in another county, and on w.hicli he reel not, therefore, any wish to reii4e any collateral • tenniiieous qeestinn. ills Lordship would tell the July tier. the i t ueAiun to be inquired into was not a!i ;het the Meeting dot the 16th August was, or was eat :11. ? and he (Seijeant Vaughan) would take the hl _rty it 44 - q I n o ' . , that no reasonable mail, fudging from the facts admitted by all, could sly it wasnatiThiga Though he would admit that the right of petitioning Tor a redress of grievances was the birthright of an Englishman=--a right, with .which be would be the last to interfere ; yet it must be exercised as a right compatible with the rights of the people at large ;— and if at any time it was thought neeessarT to impose restrictious in the exercise of that right, it must be' imputed to those who collected Meetings of such a description its to make it dangerous to exercise that right with safety to other rights equally dear and valuable. As the right of property was the right of the subject, no person had the power of calling a Meeting which would inspire reasonable apprehen sions fir the safety of that propertv ; such a Meeting, if too strong fo r th e Ci v il Powt,r, 'he would say, was illegal. But whether the Meeting was legal or ille gal, or whether the soldi..Ts did or did not commit, excesses? was not the question. The sole question for the Jury to try was, was this letter a libel against the Government and the soldiers? if every fact stated in that letter were true, yet it would be no answer to the charge against the defendant. The Learned Set jeant then read the following letter, the subject of prosecution, and commented on each sentence separately : TO THE ELECTORS OF WESTMINSTER. " GENTLENtEN—On readjg the Newspapers this morning, I I hiving arrived late yesterday evening, I was filled with shame, I Of, and indignation, at the account of the blood spilled at :11.tnchest•tr. " This, then, is the answer of the Blroughmongers to the Pe-1 titionsng People—this is the proof of our standing in no need of Refo:ni—these the practical blessings of cur glorious Borough niongrr s' domination—this the use of a Standing Army in time of peace. It seems our fathers were not such fools as sonic peopls would make us believe, in opposing the establishment of a Sta iding Army, and sending King William's Dutch Guards out of the country. Yet, would to HEAVEN, they had been Dutchmen, or Switzers, or Hessians, or Hanoverians, or any thing, rather than Englishmen, who have done such deeds.— What ! kill men unarmed, unresisting, and, gracious (;on ! wo men too ; disfigured, maimed, cut down, and trampled on by Drag() nis! Is this England ? This a Christian land ? A land of freelom ? Can such things be, and pass by u s like a SUIII - r cloud, unheeded ? Forbid it every drop of English blood in every vein, that does not proclaim its owner, bastard. the Gentlemen of England support, or wink at such proceed ings ? They have a great static in their country : they hold great estates, and they are boned, in duty and in honour to con sider them as retaining fees on the part of their country, for up- 1 , holding its Rights and Liberties : surely they will at length awake, and find they have duties to perform. " They never can stand tamely by, as lookers on, whilst bloody Neros rip open their mother's womb; they must join the general voice, loudly demat.ding justice and redress; and head Public Meetings throughout the United Kingdom, to put a step, in fts commencement, to a reign of terror and of blood; to afford' consolation as far as it can be afforded, and legal redress, to the widows and orphans—mutilated victims of this unparalleled and barbarous outrage. " For this purpose, I propose tkat a Meeting should be called in Westminster, which the Gentlemen of the Committee will arrange, and whose summons I will hold myself in readiness to attend. Whet c her the penalty of our meeting will be death by' military execution, I know not ; but this I know, a man can die but once, and never better than is vindicating the laws and liberties of his country. " Excuse this hasty address. I can scarcely tell whit I have written ; it may be a libel, or the Attorney-General may call it one, just as he pLases. When the seven Bishops were tried for libel, the army of James IL then encamped en Hounslow Heath, far supportiqg arbitrary power, gave three cheers on hearing of their acquittal. " The King, startled at the noise, asked, IVltsx's that ?' Yothing, Sir,' was the answer, but the soldiers, shouting at the acquittal of the seven Bishops." Do ye call that nothing?' replied the misgiving tyrant; and shortly after abdicated the Government. ' fis true, James could not inflict the torture on his soldiers— could not tear the living flesh from their bones with the cat-o'- nine-tails—could not gay them alive. By this as it may, our duty is to meet ; and England expects every man to do his duty.' " I remain, Gentlemen, most truly and faithfully, " Your most obedient servant, (Signed) " FRANCIS BURDETT." In the first sentence, the writer said, he was filled with shame, grief, and indignation, at the account of the blood spilled at Manchester. What could be un derstood by that sentence, but that the Honourable defendant was filled with grief for the sufferers, and indignation against the authors ? He would put it to the Jury to say, if Government were the authors; was not this letter calculated to excite indignation against Government in the minds of the readers. He would leave it to the Jury to judge whether the de fendant did not feel, and wish to excite shame and in dignation against Government, whom he designated Boroughmongers, for the part they had taken ? It was possible he might misinterpret the sentences of the letter; but he understood the Hon. Baronet in tended to defend himself, and ought, if his (Serjeant Vaughan's) interpretation were wrong, opportunely to tell them what was the right interpretation. He imputed to Sir Francis Burdett, that he introduced the Government as a set of lioroughmongers, who were answerable for the blood spilt at Manchester ; or, in other words, he said that the petitions of the People were met by Governnsent with the sword.— He charged the defendant with representing the Go vernment as a set of Boroughmongers, though, in the strict sense of those words, it meant a set of great Gentlemen, who carried on a traffic in boroughs, who kept one branch of the legislative government in subjection. When the defendant spoke of petition, he must have meant a petition to the Houses of Lords and Commons, which, he said, was answered by do mination, and by the sword ; and this fact he quoted as ,a proof of the necessity of a practical Reform. His letter next spoke of a standing army in time of peace, which, he said, concurred with the sentiments of the Boroughmongers, by which no man would doubt he meant the Government. He imputed to tae defendant the intention of exciting odium against the Government, by saying they kept a standing army in time of peace. He would allow, that by the i3ill of Rights, a standing army, in time of peace, could not be maintained by consent of Parliament— that was of the people. He was not quarrelling with the political jealousy which existed on that subject, but with the odium intended to be thrown on Go vernment, by imputing that butchery at home, and excesses which reflected disgrace on the name of Enlish, - nen, were committed at Manchester, by part of that army, and that that army which obtained laurels abroad, was employed by Government at home to butcher their fellow-citizens. He would make this remark, that he thought their character abroad fur bravery should be a shield against calumny at home, because bravery and humanity, cowardice • and cruelty, were inseparable. An interrogatory was not an affirmative, but it was as strong in the letterof the 1-Inn. Bart. a•Len he asks, " Is this England ?" &c. He believed no man could doubt that the Hoa. de fendant meant to have it understood, that this land was England degenerated, not Christian t i nland, and that tke sun of Britisi-, haerty wit:. set fur ever ! ' Whett the Thin. defendant said, " Can -such things pass by rex. had not such an expression a tendency to make every•mari in the jury-box say, " it is too much to 'bear. This expression tended to excite se dition, as charged in the information. The next sen tence, saying that " British Gentlemen could not look at bloody Neros ripp ing their mothers' wombs," needed no comment. It might, perhaps, be difficult to say who these blet6dy Neros were ; but the next sentetiqe clearly pointed out the Government, be cause the people were called upon, by Meetings, to " put a Stop to. the reign of terror and of blood," tak ing for t;ranted that such a reign was commenced. It was impossible to say that the defendant did not al lude to the present reign, and if unlit he said were true, if soldiers did commit murder, they ought to be prosecuted; but no man had a right to come for ward, and, holding such an opinion, write down the Army, but they ought to become the public accuser. The sentence calling upon the Gentlemen of England to hold Meetings for such a purpose was extremely objectionable, and called most loudly for redress.— In saying he (Sir Francis Burdett) did not know but the consequence of meeting would be death by mili tary execution, he intimated that we lived under a military government, and that the Government of England would turn the army against the people when legally met. The sentence, " a man cannot die but once, &c." was equally seditious. He would beg •the Jury to remark the deliberation with which the Hon. Batt. wrote this letter, when he said he knew not but it might be a libel, or, the Attorney general might call it one, The Leained Serje.rnt then went into the history of the Seven Bishops, alluded to in Sir Francis Burdett's letter, and said, there was not a part of the English history which he more ad mired. It was material to observe that, and the ex pression of the Honourable defendant, " England expects every man to do his duty." He charged the ' defenrlant with intimating, that if he were prose cuted for a libel, and acquitted, the soldiers would be disaffected, and the Government abdicated. There was no similitude between the condition of the soldiery in the present times and the obnoxious reign of James IL lie had now stated to the Jury the whole of the letter, which was one of such a nature that the At torney-General would have been guilty of a derelic tion of his duty if he had not instituted this prosecu tion. It was difficult for him to conceive anything that could be delivered in stronger terms ; and it was the duty of Government to put down libels of this description ; for if such things were tolerated, no one knew where they would end. The Press was a most tremendous engine when it was abused, and a source of the greatest blessings when decently con-- ducted. The Jury were the true Censors of the Press, and the guardians of the law, and it - wa; their duty to see that the Administration of the country should not be brought into contempt and hatred. With these observations he should conclude what he had to say; and he was confident that their verdict would be the result of a sound and correct judgment. Mr. Samuel Brooks was now called.-lle said he lived in the Strand, in London. He knew the defewiant ;he was acquaint ed with• his hand-writing; he believes the letter now shewn him to be his band-writing ; it came to his hands in August last,. through the hands of a professional Gentleman, Mr. Bickerstal:. The letter came in an envelope; he had not got the envelope, ' and does not know whether it came by the post. Hehad a copy of It sent to the papers. He waited on Lord Sidnsouth on the subject of the letter ; cannot recollect the day. Whose 'hand-writing was the envelope ?—A. It .Was Sir Francis's. Q. What was it ?—A. A desire to pulAish the letter in the papers. The date of the letter is, August 22d. I received it a day or two after. Witness being shewn another letter, was asked if it was the hand-writing of Sir Francis? he said he did not know. Ile wa.s shewn an envelepe, and asked if it was the writing of Sir F. Burdett? be said, he did not believe it wai. Win. Tooke, the next witness, said he was acquainted with Sir F. Burdett's hand-writing. Being shewn the direction on the envelope, and asked if it was his hand writing? he answered, some of the letters were like his hand-writing, and he believed the whole to be his. Wm. Simpkin said, he kept the toll-gate near Kirby, about one hundred yards from Kirby Park, where Sir Francis Bur ' deft resided ; he saw him coming by his gate on the 22d and 23d of August last ; he was riding each time, Cross-examined by Sir Francis Burdett.—The gate is on the borders of the county, not far from Oakham, Rutlandshire. Mr. Brooks being again called, said, the lettet was publishe4 in the British Press. Witness sent it to that paper. It was not paid for as an advertisement ; but was left to the discretion of the Editors of the Paper, whether they chose to insert it or not. Here the letter was read by the Clerk of the Court , and the British Press, containing the letter, was produced. Tile enve lope was next read, it was directe d to Lord Viscount Stnsioren, dated August 2s, and signed " FRANCIS Balsam." This letter has been already before the Public • it was that in which he ac knowledged his being the author o f the letter addressed to the Electors of Westminster. Mr. DIMMAN now submitted to the Court, that there was no case proved which required an answer, or which could come before the Jury. There was no proof of the letter having been written in Leicester shire. It was merely proved that Sir Francis was seen on horseback near Kirby Park on the day of the date of the letter, and he might have rode into ano ther county and dropped the letter in some Post-' Office there. The bare writing of a letter %%MS no offence; for there must be a publication proved by direct evidence. The charge was, that he had pub lished this letter in the county of But it might as well have been published in any other county. It was quite as consistent, that he might have written the letter in his study. taken a ride out, met Mr. Bickerstaff in another county, and there de livered the letter to him. Such a thing could be in no way inconsistent with the facts just given in evi dence. There was no proof that the letter was pub lished in the county of Leicester; and a Jury would be perjured if they found a man guilty of an offence alleged to be committed in one county, without proof that it was committed in such county. Mr. CLARICE objected to this mode of argument, as being an address to the Jury, and not a point of law submitted to the Bench. Mr. DENMAN said, there were many cases in paint, and one of them was the very case alluded to by Mr. Serjeant Vaughan; that of the Se7en Bishops, where the Judges gave their opinion that there was no proof of the petition to the King having been pub-. lisped in the County of Middlesex, until Lord Sun derland had proved that he had presented it to the King on behalf of the Bishops. Now, he submitted that there was no proof as to what county the letter was written in. But even if the letter was put into erost-office in the County of Leicester, it was no publicati.m in that County, because it was not shewn to any one there; nor was it any publication. at AI, until it arrived at the place of its destination. Mr. Denman quoted some other cases in support of his argument. lie admitted that Sir Francis Burdett I might very properly have been brottzlit before a 'Jury in Middlesex; but he maintained that the fact of publication ought to be clearly shewn, that the case might come within the jurisdiction of that Court ; and that it could not be tried in any jurisdic tion except where it was published. The simple fact of writing the letter was no libel ; it was not a libel until it was delivered. Sir Francis might have - rode out as far as 0 rkliam, in Ruzlandshire, which was not far off, at the time when he was seen riding out on the 2`2d of August, and left the letter there. Zt was then, in his opinion, a case which could not go to a Jury. The Seven Bishops wrote their Petition la Serrey, yet they were not tried in that County, but in the County in which it was delivered to the Ming. There Was no proof of this letter having been seen by any human eye in the County of Leicester, until it was shewn in the Court that day. Therefore there was no proof of its having been written or pirblisLed there. Putt.etes follou el on the same aide. The writing of the letter was not a publication F...r Francis Burdett ; it never was published until it came to Middlesex ; and there was not evc.i any evidence. to shew that the le:ter was ever wiitten in Leices tershire. In the case of the Seven .Bishops, to admitted that they wrote the paper in Surrey; 'and then it was admitted, on behalf of the Crown, tl:at there was not any evidence of publication in Surrey. —The present was a case not only in point. but was much stronger ; for there was neither admission nor evidence to shew that this letter was written Leicestershire. There was not the slightest evic:ence to shew where Mr. Bickerstaff received the letter. The onus rested on the Crown to shew how it came out of the hands of Sir Francis Burdett to Mr. Wck erstaff. No such thing was (lore; and-theiefore there was a complete chasm in the evidence. Mr. Justice Bear said, he was of opinion that there was evidence sufficient to go to the-Jury ; and the objection now put might hereafter be urged in ano ther place, in arrest of judgment, if a confliction should take place. The case of the Seven Bishops was different, for the libel then was tried in the County in Nsiiich it was alone circulated. In the case of Justice Janson, it was decided that he might be tried in Middlesex for the letter which he had sent to Mr. Cobbett, and which was published in his Register; but that decision did not shew. that ifb might not he tried in Ireland, where the Letter was written, On the same principle, it did not follow, from the cases quoted, that Sir Francis Burdett might not be tried in Leicestershire. It would be for the Jury to say whether they thought there was sirfficienl evidence to shew that the letter was written in Leicestershire. After a . lapse of about ten minutes, during which the Judge, Jury, and Sir Francis Burdett retired, Sir FRANCIS BURPEFT, at about half-past twelve, rose to address the Jury. He began by thanking the Learned Serjeant -for the handsome manner in which he had spoken of him ; and in what he might say of the powers of the Attorney-Generalhe begged to be understood as not intendin g to th row anyreflection on that Officer personally, but on the Office itself.. Tne mode of prosecution by ex-efficio information he de clared to be unconstitutional—reptynant to Alcpa C/,artit. and to every principle of jtestice. It was the duty of the Attorney-General to h Ave sent him 'before a Grand Jury ; and if he had, he (Sir Francis)would have been saved all the trouble he was now put to. The first question the Jury had to try, was a fact of which there was not a tittle of evidence before them; so far from there being any proof to show that the letter was put into any Post-office in Leices tershire, he (Sir Francis Burdett) declared he did not know himself; nor did any of his servants know what Post-office it had been put into ; so much was he in the habit of going About to different places, writing letters in different places, and then putting them into different Post-offices. He was therefore brought to trial in Leicestershire, while it was not known whether the act he was charged with had been done in that county. He was, by a paltry and pettifogging quibble, taken out of the protection of his natural Judges—out of his own neighbourhood, where his principles were truly un derstood, and his conduct known, to a county which could know nothing of him, and which was selected by.the Attorney-General, most probably from a cal culation of the prejudices and misconceptions which prevailed tlere against his (Sir Francis's) political principles. In so doing, the Attorney-General had been guilty of a double libel-,-he libelled his na tural Judges, by imputing partiality, and he lie belled the Jury before whom he (Sir Francis) then stood, by supposing that twelve Englith Gentle men, of whatever political bias, would judge him not by the facts, but by their own prepossessions.— The Attorney-General selected the County of Leices ter, to find, not a trial, but' a victim. Ought such unconstitutional powers to be left at she discrctio of an office, the holder of which must act against his own honour, and often be thi tool of political ma lignity ? The JUDGE interposed, and said such language was not proper to be applied to a high and responsible Officer of the Crown. Sir FRANCIS denied that he was an Officer of the Crown—he was not, as the Judges were, independent. He was, in a word, the creature of the breath of the Minister, and cxpired with his power. This distinc tion, with submission to the Learned Judge, was very material for his defence, because, when it was •known on wham the Attorney-General depended, the motives of the present prosecution would be clearly under stood. Why did not the Attorney-General send him to a Grand Jury in Middlesex, and iry him there?-- The reason, doubtless, was, that he despaired of a conviction in Middlesex, and expected he should End men in this county who ente ,. zaineet strong prejedices against him for his supposed political principles.— Sir Francis next adverted to the undefined character of a libel; it• was impossible for any man to tell - what it was ; the term was borrowed from clic worst part of the Roman law, and adopted first Erg. land by the infamous Court of Star Chan,bor. was known that wh at was d ec l are d to b e a libel 'one County, Was declared in another Conntrnot to be a libel. • This was the clearest proof he could gi-e* of the expressions practised against melt on char es of having publi s h e d libel s , i n de e d it was ditficUlt for any man charged with such an offence to know how to defend himself. If he were charged with a mu;- der, he should know how to defend himself; but not when charged with what was called a libel. The of Libel was even mo.e undefined than tl:e s2":z.lry 1 1 1 • .;• i ~~,