The Sun. — London, England, 1829-12-23 00:00:00

COMMISSION OF LUNACY. NINTH DA V Long before twelve o'clock, the time at which it wee understood that Mr. BROUOHAM was to address the Com missioners on behalf 'of the alleged lunatic, the room :n the Gray's Inn Coffee-house, appropriated to this con:- miasion, and the stairs leading to it, were crowded to ex cess, the utmost anxiety seeming to pervade all to hear the apecch of the Learned Gentleman. A short time at'er twelve o'clock the Learned Gentlem in entered the room, and proceeded to address the Jury as follows : Gentlemen of the Jury, in rising to discharge the vely important, though not difficult duty that devolves upon me, I feel that I have great necessity for your indulgence soil also that of the Commiasioners, in respect especially of the vast mass of evidence which has been accumulated by this almost unprecedented proceeding. How I should hare been able to get through that mess of evidence consistent with the discharge of other professional duties, and to have felt myself in the calamity of performing my duty here, I know not, hut from the assistance of my hemmed coadju tors, to whose experience and skill I feel myself greatly indebted. Permit me, gentlemen, to say, that you, like myself, have no very difficult task to perform. Nevertheless, it is a duty you have to deelsro whether a fellow-citizen shrill he taken from the management of his own affairs— shall he deprived Pooh access to every human being, except the keepers ttf br. Burrows—whether a fellow-citizen ahoy lee tar:lna unlike a h uman b e i ng , b ut as one d epr i ve d or nal leabonal nature, and incapable of managing that littte property that remains to him, after these proceedings heat: closed, and whether that little property shall be vested in the hands of others. In commenting upon the evidenee, Gentlemen, I promise you whatever " stuff or ncnsense" you may hear from me, you shall hear no such trash es Mr. Wright was good enough to compliment me With. Look, Gentlemen, first of all to the immensely protracted {death of these proceedings; look to the mass of lithaation both in the Court of Chancery and here; through which Mr. Davie,. has been dragged—through whirl, his property has been dragged—look at all these, aryl I will venture to say, that, all-important to him as is th e result of this inquiry, before these proceedings shall clitae, I greatly fear that the care and management of his property is him will Ire comparatively of te ifiing Im portance. Gentlemen, I very much doubt whi they the . fottune—the attiple fortune in Mr. Davies's situation iii We, r f which he became possessed by his industry and talent., and extraordinary success in hide—l doubt very much, Gentlemen, whether any of that will remain when this inquiry is past and gone. In other respects this case is without a precedent—l allude to the manner in which it has been conducted— and in doing so, / would be understood as speaking with all tenderness as relates to certain pet sons—with all pos sible charity as relates to othero, and with perfect kind ness as relates to my Learned Friends. I bring no charge against them, hut against those front whom they received instruction. Gentlemen, a Commission of Lou icy, or rather an inquisition into the state of mind of an alleged lunatic, differs from all other cases. In other cases there err two parties—the plaintiff and defendant, who meet together in open contest—who are adversaries—it may be enemies. Here gentlemen they are to be the same parties, at least they ought to be the same parties—animated by the same spirit—having the same interests to protect—and the same persons to feel for. Here there ought to be nn contentious wranglirge to get a vette diet—n o trick of the profeasion as at Nisi Prins to do so. But the parties originating the proceedings should fcn On in every step, animated alike with the same feel inFe, tool openly showing that they have but the accom plishment of the time desire, namely, that of bringing before, the Jury, who are to try the question, the whole Pacts and circumstances of which they are possessed. At Nisi Prins each party wishes to obtain the victory, and wia,bly so; but here, if the victory is obtained by the preductien of evidence or the keeping of it hack, the vic tory is obtained over the parties themselves. Gentlemen, I vow most solemnly before you that here, as else-. where in the like inquiry, if at any one instant in the progress of the cause, I had felt that the evidence was such that no reasonable man could think otherwise than that Mr. Davies was of unsound mind, as his Conn ed, entrusted with his interests, I should have felt myself hound on that instant to have suspended further proceed ings —to have saved the wreck of his estate—and to have flung around him that protection which a proceeding like the present would give him, even if the other side were to Abandon the inquiry. I have so felt and acted here, and in that I have the concurrence of my Learned Ceadjutor, and I must say that I have never yet, though I have un happi'y been employed in one or two (Toes of this nature, 1 have never acted en any other principle. But those Gentlemen who have instructed my Learned Friends have inspired them with no such feelings;—they have, I say, notoriously kept (mei; evidence of the most important nature. Though I wish tint, gentlemen, to streak harshly of this, I must remind you of that rematkahle circumstance—the examination of Mr. Holder, becamee this illustrates their conduct and ours. Mr. nobler was brought forward in coosequence of some difficulty in substantiating the giving of is notice. Mr. Holder voluntarily came forward, foot iog that he would produce thst notice without making himself a witueas. " No," said toy friends, " let Mr. Holder be sworn." Ile was sworn, gentlemen, and there fore made a witness on both sides. By this manner of proeic. ding of course Mr. (feebler av s to be cross-examined on the whol e mese. This my Learned Friends objected to, and aeon illy wanted the proceedings to he delayed, in order to allow time for an application to the Lord Chancellor.— If the object of my Learned Friends was to put before you the truth and the whole trutlnif it was not their 'wish to snap a verdict at your hands, why did they object to Mr. Holder's being examined on the whole case? And then, the instant they found they hal got themselves into what they thought was a scrape, though I lent them my helping hand, and offered to get them out of the pit into which they had fallen—though they rejected that with some indignation, yet they efterwari's pursued that course which I 'rave already stated to you. They made such a struggle that I have no doubt the oldest practitioner here or elsewhere would say was entirely without precedent. This, gentle men, I say, proves what they are after;—that it is not truth, but victory—not the light, but only such light as may distract and bewilder. They want at all events a verdict; of fairly, all well—but a verdict they must have at ail events. That is the object, and the only object, of the clients of my Learned Friends. The same mode of proceeding has been adopted in the lesser de tails of the case. Sir Charles Wetherell turned into ridicule some parts of Mr. Davies's conduct, a mode of proceeding which I am cute his own good sense would never have permitted him to adopt but for his instructions. So with Mr. Wright, playing his second part ; but I could not hut observe that there were at times great departures from the tenor struck by his learned leader. Gentlemen, the object you have in view is to discover by the examina tion of the parties on both sides, and comparing their dif ferent points, whether Mr. Davies, is in such a state as to be capable of managing his person and his property. Now, for this purpose, let us just consider first of all what kind of evidence would have been most satisfactory to your mind. In leading you through the inquiries, I *ball shortly describe a variety of circumstances which appear to have given rise in certain quartets to an apprehension of an aberration of mind in Mr. Davies, beginning in the spring of this year. It was true, Mr. Davies was a nerv vex man, had been extremely attentive to business, his education bad been neglected. and he with praiseworthy zeal had endeavoured to supply those defects. This cause it was thought, showed some aberrations of mind. Mr• Davies , was a man of speculative matinee, it is said those peculiarities have increased, and therefore it was a necessary consequence that he was insane. Gentlemen, I say it was absolutely necessary, in order to give you a chance of dis covering the real truth of the case, that those should be examined who knew him best and longest. The question is not whether there is a peculiarity now in the manner of Mr. Davies, but whether that peculiarity, which is said now to exist, existed before: and who would be so able to speak .of that as those who had long known him. Mr. Davies has been surrounded by clerks in his employ, to the number of 17 or IS, who have seen all his operations in trade, and been acquainted with his every action ; yet toy Learned Friends have not called one of them; those who have been called were entirely ignorant of every circum stance attending the case of Mr. Davies: the Counsel, I say, purposely selected all those who knew him not, and have purposely kept back all those who knew him. They have called those who are— I won't say unfriendly towards Mr. D ivies—but those who could not have the slightest means of throwing any light upon this subject. Now, Gentlemen, who are the witnesses they have called— you have Mr. Varney, whose evidence, I thinl , goes for little or nothing. (Mr. Brougham was proceeding to comment at great length on the evidence adduced in support of the C01411111E.. sion, when we left.) GOOD TRADE.--Notwithstanding the dull ness of the past semen, the number of passengers between Dundee, Newburgh, and Perth, by the Hero steam packet, has been ascertained to be about 28,000, since blue commenced plying in the spring; besides numberlews crouds betwixt Dundee and Broughty Ferry...., an. EX-OFFICIO INFORMATION. COURT OF KING'S BENCH—THIS DAY. At the sitting of the Court this morning there was no :Tom], and but few persons of distinction present. THE KING v. JOHN FISHER, ROBERT ALEX. ANDER, AND JOHN MATTHEW GUTCH. The cause being called on, the following Special Jury :nen were called end sworn : John Win. Sutherland, Esq. James Peter Undrey, merchant. Alfred Batson, merchant. George Goodwin, Esq. James Brown, merchant. Richard Hillhouse, merchant. Thomas Malign Sherwood, Esq. William M. Brown, Esq. merchant. Robert Joseph Chambers, Esq. Mr. Chambers applied to be excused, on the ground of his being a Magi-trate ; but Lord TENTERDEN said that he was not exempt by the Act, and he was obliged to serve. No more Special Jurymen being present, the following Common Jurymen were added. George Smith. Thomas Watson ; and Henry Smith, of Dartmouth-street. The Counsel for the prosecution were Mr. ATTORNEY. GENERAL, Mr. SOLICITOR-GENERAL, Mr. GURNEY, Mr. BROUGHAM, and Mr. WIGHTMAN. Mr. Ponaocx and Mr. HILL appeared for Mr. Gutch, and Mr. BARSTOW for Mr. Fisher ; and the defendant Mr. Alexander, defended himself in person. Mr. WIGHTMAN opened the pleadings by stating that this was a prosecution against John Fisher, Robert Alex ander, and John Matthew Gutch, for publishing an in flammatory libel, calculated to bring his Majesty's Govern. ment into contempt, in a newspaper entitled the Morning Journal, on the 14th of May last. All the defendants had pleaded "Not Guilty." The ATTORNEY-GENERAL rose and said. May it please your Lordship, and Gentlemen of the Jury, it is my duty very shortly to bring before you that libel which is characterized by the introduction which my Learned Friend has stated to you as contained in the declaration: The,defendants are the Proprietors, and I believe one of them, Editor of the Morning Journal. The publication in pais ion took place on the 14th May, I think of the present year, and the charge contained in this information is, that the object of the libel which I shall produce to your notice was to degrade his Meje-ty, and bring him into contempt, because it was believed he had submitted to indignities unworthy his Sovereignty and his person. Gentlemen, I need not state to you how important it is that in all public discussions, whether by writing or speech, that the person and dignity of the Sovereign should be heated with due respect. I have been educated in a prin ciple which I trust will never abandon me, that the Sovereign is entitled always to reverence ; that attachment to his per son—reverence for his dignity, form a part of that sub stantial loyalty which every good subject oueht to feel. Whatever therefore may be the nature of the discussion, however it may agitate the angry feelings of men, it has a'ways been deemed incumbent on every individual, whe ther he ranks in such a discussion or not, to treat the sub ject of the Sovereign with decorum ; and you will have to judge when you hear this libel, whether it has observed that respect or not. Ira the early period of the present year, at the first meeting of Parliament, to a certain ex tent the public mind was considerably agitated by a very important subject, introduced by his Majesty to Parliament. I am perfectly indifferent, Gentlemen, what your senti ments may be on that subject. lam aware whatever your opinion may be, whether you are of opinion that that great question which agitated these kingdoms ought not to have been settled as it has been, or that it ought to have re mained the constant source of discord and contention, that nevertheless you will agree with me when that ques tion had been settled, when the voice of Parliament, by the recommendation of his Majesty, and the subsequent ratification of that decision by his Majesty himself, had disposed of the question, surely the time had then ar rived when the discussion should cease—when it became the duty of every man, who desired to inculcate respect for the laws of his country, to attend to that—to abstain from personal attack, and from those remarks calculated to bring any part of the legislature, and more espe cially that most sacred part, the Sovereign and his power, into disgrace and contempt. Gentlemen, the print in question, chiefly conducted by one of the defendants, appears to have espoused a very sanguine notion during these dis cussions that the measure was impolitic and could not pass. I presume the person who conducted that print was totally ignorant of the secret springs of which he sup posed he was possessed ; that he wished only to inform his readers that he knew more than he really did possess; and when he found finally that his Majesty hail given his assent to that important measure, instead of retracting those assertions, or, if that should have been dis agreeable, of observing a respectful silence, he thought fit to continue in that state of hostility arid personal attack in which he had for seine time indulged. Gentlemen, during the period when the Catholic question was before Parliament, a full licence was given to the discussion by the public prints ; and I may state that no steps were taken against the public prints at that time for come of the most violent attacks ever spoken, made against the prison bringing forward the ineasure. When, however, all should have been peace, what will you think of the writer of this publica tion, who undertakes to state that his Majesty was act ing solely under the authority of others, was under restraint, and subject to an influence unworthy of any Sovei eign— inconsistent with his dignity anti affecting his personal honour? Gentlemen, it becomes the Sovereign of this great country at all times to have the free exercise of his own will, and in none does the Constitution respect that Sovereign freedom mote than in the choice of its Mlni eters ; and I believe I may say there never was a Monarch who filled the throne of this kingdom le-s disposed to submit to improper interference, or less wanting in per sonal credit and firmness, than the Sovereign who now wears the Crown. Now, by the publication which this gentleman has thought fit to send forth under an affecta tion of pity, which is insulting, addressed from such a quarter to such a quarter, and an affectation of compas sion, be chooses to represent the King of England, as a person destitute of a will of his own, enthralled, subject to fetters and restraint, not daring to show himself in public, having become unpopular, and so bound down by the controul of an imperious Minister as neither to have a capacity yr voice of his own. Is that fit respect to observe towards a Sovereign ? Is that treat ing with due decorum the Monarch of these realms? If the defendant should say to-day, there have been many other publications worthy of prosecution which have been passed by, I shall not enter into controversy with him on that point ; it was my painful duty to select for prosecu tion, and lam sorry to say it, some licentious part of that unlimited audacity with which some part of the Press has been lately conducted, and I thought it my duty to select a part that had some attack on the person of the Severeign, and I hare got it here. Gentlemen, have the goodness to attend to this, which I shall now read to you, and then you will be able to say whether the representation of the sta tion here represented is one that is consistent with the high honour of the Sovereign of this realm : " We have the best reasons for stating that his Majesty .has lately evinced something more than marked coolness towards his Grace the Duke of Wellington, the cause of this is known ; but as atones have ears, we shall to a cer tain extent he silent for the present. " His Majesty, it is said, complains bitterly that his Ministers have placed him in such a position, that he can not enjoy the pleasure of exhibiting himself to his people. George the Fourth was till nuw a popular Monarch. That he has been rendered otherwise is the act of his im perious Minister. We deeply lament the occurrence, but public feeling is an ever-moving tide that is affected by causes which, although invisible, often lead to disastrous re-ults. We pity our aged and revered Sovereign." That's very obliging. A writer of a Newspaper to point nut his Sovereign as an object of pity, is certainly most in dulgent ! " But there are sorrows which are too poignant to be re lieved by the secret tear ; they must be rendered torpid by other appliances." Now, this is a part of the paragraph which I really do not understand. It is far beyond my comprehemion : but what 1 particularly cad your attention to, is the audacity of a man who dares to represent his Sovereign as a subject of pity to his people. "It is sufficiently obvious that there never was a more ambitious or dangerous Minister in England than the Duke of Wellington ; but if his ascendancy over the Mo narch be such as is represented—or rather, such as it is represented to have been, then we are sure that national sympathy must spontaneously flow towards the King. The people must feel intensely the restraints imposed upon the Sovereign, and regret that, owe: flowing with goodness as he is; kind to excess ; fondly attached to his subjects, and paternally anxious to see them all prosperous and happy, he cannot mingle with their public entertainments, or receive those congratulations which must be gratifying to his Majesty, in the wane of existence. But his Ma jesty may yet hare strength and intrepidity to burst his letters ; dismiss - from before his throne evil councillors, and assume that station in public opinion which befits a popular Monarch." So that the King is described new as an object of pity and commiseration by the editor of a newspaper; as one who was once Fopular, but who dares not now shcw him . self to his subjects, and as one who may again occupy a station—which of course it is inferred, he has abandoned-- that may fit a popular monarch ; implying that the sta tion he now occupies is one that does not befit a popular monarch. Now the meaning of this is no more than to insinuate that in the great measure to which I have re ferred, his Majesty acted without will, that he acted under restraint, and that he exposed himself to the ignominious empire over his will and authority which would be utterly disgraceful to any one. In what way the gentleman got his knowledge, I think it not fit to stay to enquire. This I know, that the fact is as false as the insinuation is impertinent, and that the statement is as degrad ing to the monarch as any libel I have known in modern times publishes against the Sovereign autho rity. And what is the object of this? What is the object of it, Gentlemen ? if the writer intended to at tack an administration, were there no other means of doing it, than endeavouring to wound it through the sides of the King? Is it impossible to write down a Ministry, if that be the object of the Press, without de grading the Monarch ? Is it not a degradation to repre sent him as an object of pity ? and to state as the ground of that pity, that his fetters are imposed on him by his Ministers, that his will has been enthralled, and that he has been obliged to submit to acts that make him so un• popular that he dare not show himself? How comes this writer to be acquainted with the voice of the people of Eng land ? How does he know better than the two Houses of Parliament what it is right for the Legislature to do ? We have bad a specimen lately of what this supposed know ledge is worth, shown upon a trial a few days since, re specting an effort made against the alleged falling of the Ministry, which ended in a paltry procession, consisting of a hackney-coach and four horses sent to Windsor.—(A laugh. )—llis Majesty dares not show himself ! Is not that sufficient ? If it be intended to degrade the Monarch, what has the Sovereign done? What does the writer in sinuate he has done which has rendered him incapable of showing himself to his people? Gentleit:en, I submit to you that to tolerate such a libel is to give a licence to any writer, who, funny as he may be, and destitute of talent as he may be, may, nevertheless, be capable of holding the higheA offices and persons of the greatest dignity up to contempt, and place them in the same state of degradation as himself. Gentlemen, it is unnecessary to dwell longer on this. I believe no person, who has ever advocated the liberty of the press to its fullest extent, has ever dared to say it should be carried to the extent of a personal insult on the Sovereign. And I trust I shall never address a jury who shall not correspond with the sentiment I entertain, that when a man is brought be fore them, charged with an offence of this sort, that they must feel as I do, that he is a fit subject for prosecution and punishment. Mr. Raven was called by the Solicitor-General ; and produced the affidavit, proving the proprietorship of th e Paper, and who also produced a number of the Morning Journal, of the 14th of May, containing the alleged libel. Letters Patent, appointing his Grace the Duke of Wel lington First Lord of the Treasury, dated Jan. 26, 1828, were put in and reed. The Hon. Mr. Greville called and examined by Mr. Greville, you are one of the principal clerks in his Majesty's Privy Council ?—Yes. Before and on the 14th of May last was his Grace the Duke of Wellington one of his Majesty's Privy Council? —Yes. Lord TENTERDEN—I doubt whether this is evidence of the Duke of Wellington's being in the Ministry. Mr. GURNEY—But it is described so in the libel my Lord. Lard TENTERDEN—Oh, that i 9 another thing. Mr. GURNEY—Mr. Greville, was his Grace at that time at the Privy Council as one of his Majesty's Ministry ? —I know that he was there as one of the Privy Council, and I suppose that he was one of the Ministry. This was the case for the prosecution. Mr. PottocE—May it please your Lordship and Gentlemen of the Jury, I appear to-day before you as the Counsel for Mr. Gutch, and Mr. Gutch only. I appeared for him alone yesterday, and after the attention and indul gence with which I was honoured yesterday by his Lord ship and the Jury I do not intend occupying your time for any length of time to day. Whether the rublication be or he not a libel, and which it will be your province to de termine by and by, when you have heard the whole case, I say that in that question Mr. Gutch professes, to have nothing to do. I neither admit it nor deny it. I did not yesterday admit it. Mr. Gutch has nothing to do with it one way or the other. It would not be becoming in Mr. Gutch to prejudice the case of any other party before you. But, admitting it to be a libel, which it is, however, the duty of the Learned Gentlemen on the other side to prove, I support Mr. Gutch because the circumstances which I shall have the honour to lay before you will prone, beyond contradiction, that Mr. Gutch was nut the writer, nor the editor of the Paper ; that he was in fact only proprietor of the Paper, but in the editorial part he did not intei fere. Ha certainly supplied funds, but as to the libel Mr. Gutch, personally or morally, has nothing o❑ earth to do. He did not knave it at the time it was published. He never afterwards gave as sent to it; his defence is that a partner in a news paper, as well as all partners in all other concerns, is responsible for his own, and not his partner's acts. I entered into cases yesterday, Gentlemen, which I thought necessary, with which however I shall not trouble you to day, but which I shall present to the Court on another occasion, when it may be necessary to call the defendant, Mr. Gutch before it. Lord TENTERDEN—YOU will have a right to move— you will have the benefit of the same evidence to-day as yesterday, if Mr. Attorney-Gcneral has no objection. This was understood to be assented to. Mr. POLLOCK, I shall occupy the Court bat a few mo•• ments longer. But I think it necessary to make some ob servations upon a hypothetical case which my Learned Friend the Attorney-General yesterday laid before the Jury, in a similar case to the present against the same de fendant. lie supposed that two persona were to join, one, to find capital for the purpose of providing guns, pistols, swords, and powder, for the purpose of pursu ing that sort of labour on the highway which would be productive to the firm, in fact for stopping pas sengers and robbing them. And my Learned Friend seemed to contend that the partner of a newspaper, where it was necessary to have men of reputation and talent, was in some measure analogous to the partnership which he supposed to exist. But would the Jury entertain such an opinion? Would they suppose that the proprietors and editors of a newspaper partnership were on a par with one which furnished materials for robbery? I have no hesi tation in stating, Gentlemen, that the case he mentioned, is bottomed on what I shall call the fallacy of the present actions. It could not be denied that persons of great talent and respectability were engaged in conducting public newspapers; but it was also well known that the press was an object of a suspicious jealousy, and I will add, groundless fear. With regard to the points of law which I intended to sustain by the cases which I cited yesterday, it seems that that has ceased to be law, that it was put down by an Act intrcduced by Mr. Pox, but rain sup ported in the declaration that it was that which all the Judges in the land at the time pronounced to be law. It seems, however, not to be law now. It may be said, that the person who leaves in the possession of his partner materials for printing and publishing libels, is a fit object for criminal prosecutions, if libels are published. Nothing can be more fallacious. If a servant is left in possession of dangerous weapons, which can only be used for de struction, his master is not answerable for any act of de struction which he may occasion. Nay, more—if the master were wicked enough to put into his hands weapons for the purpose of destroying John Nokes, yet if the ser vant bad a particular enmity against Tom Styles, the master would not be answerable, even though aware of the fact, and that he bad furnished the servant with arms for the purpose of death. But such is not the purpose of the Editor and Proprietor of a Newspaper. It must be recollected that the object of a newspaper is to make ob servations on passing occurrences, and to give the news of the day. And the Jury are not warranted in considering that their object is prima facie to issue libellous and scandalous articles upon public characters. They must not consider that the freedom of the Press itself is dangerous, because it will be used sometimes for those purposes. That is, I think, a mistake not founded in principle. Ido not intend to urge to.day, Gentlemen, other than what is considered law by his Lordship. I shall therefore not refer to the topics which I argued yes terday, but I feel it due to myself to state that I then mentioned what I thought was justified by the result of my own opinions and labour, and I was not less so in stating yesterday the arguments of Counsel, than I am honestly stating to day my opinion as a man. I had only at tempted to state yesterday my opinion, that in the ab sence of moral crime, a man ought not to be amen ible to punishment. I had also shown that Mr. Gutch had no more to do with this libel, I call it a libel because it is so called on the other side; it will be, however, for you to judge whether it be a libel or not—than any other person. But I shall show by-and • bye, when he shall be brought up for judgment, if it may be thought necessary for him to be brought up, what may be an important question to the Court and to the public, whether nr not the proprietors of Newspapers are liable whether they interfere or unt. I trust, however, that my Learned Friend will not think it necessary to call up Mr. Gutch. I shall then shear that lit; then e=ndeavoured to get rid of the shares which he had in the Paper in ques tion before the libel was published, which act, my Learned Friend and every body must know, may be tr.et with im mense difficulty, and cannot be perffirmed in a moment. I shall not, Gentlemen, press further on ynnr attention, but reserve what I have to say for the occasion to which I have alhtdied. Mr. BARSTOW—My Lord, I appear for Mr. Fisher, in his character as printer and publisher of the newspaper in question ; and I beg respectfully to submit his case to the Court, knowing that the course which is most proper is sure, in the end, to meet with the most beneficial result. I shall not therefore address the jury—l shall merely re quest that his Lordship will take a note of that fact. Mr. Alexander—May it please your Lordship and Gentle men of the Jury, I appear alone in a case of great hardship. The Learned Gent. in his defence for his client, Mr. Gutch, attempts to show that my late partner, Mr. Gutch, had no concern with the libel. In my opinion, which I give with treat deference, I think that he would have done his client more justice had he been wholly silent. His Lordship will, however, tell you that my late partner, as far as this article is concerned, is as liable as myself. By this article, writt n on the 14th May, we must stand or fall together. I shall bring under your consideration the merits of this case, and it will be necessary that I should notice historically certain occurrences which gave rise to this case. These prosecutions, as the Attorney-General— that Learned Gentleman—with his usual candour has told you, arose out of the discussions on the Catholic question. I admit that they did. I have no desire to consult at pre sent the merits of that question which was discussed upon a late occcasion, which, whether it shall prove beneficial or otherwise, whether it shall allay the contending passions of opposing parties, is to be determined hereafter. When th.t Biil was introduced into Parliament, and introduced in so extraordinary a manner, without principle, without consistency, and without honour, the country was in the greatest agitation, and when every subject who could before repose on the repeatedly avowed principles of those wl:o•e honour before was never questioned, it was no wonder that the public mind should be excited, that the men placed in situations which they happened to be in, could ever have acted with inconsistency ; I was bound by my private principles, and by every principle of justice and . discretion to make some observations on those events; I thought it my duty to speak plainly upon that important subject ; whether I did so in a man ner beyond the limits of fair discussion, is a question which you are this day called on to decide; whether in the moments of excitation we may he clothed with the privilege of using a warmth of expression, which at other seasons would not be commonly indulged in. Men are called on, on such occasions, to express their opinions, riot ' calmly but warmly. Out of those discussions arose this article of the 14th May. I said yesterday to the Court, as I tell you now, that the first motion made in the last term, on the first day on which the Attorney-General en tered his office, that this was the first of a series of prose ' cutions, the object of which was to put down the free Press of this country. What was shown yesterday in the result of that case almost rendered it unnecessary that I should have predicted it. I have told you what took place on the discussion of that question. I was waited on by a Noble Friend intimately connected with his Majesty's Administration, who told me my observations on the non who conducted that Bill, and on the principles on which it was conducted, at a time when, from the circum stances of Sir C. Wetherell's resignation, and the conduct of other persons who were never suspected of inconsistency, the country was excited in a most unusual degree, my Noble Friend told me that 1 was to take warning. Take warning (said be to me, in a grave tone), for if you make one false step, so deeply have the observations which you have made upon those men entered into their hearts, that they would endeavour to punish you, by every means, for the reflections you have made. I said yesterday, and I repeat it to-day, that I de not think it possible that any one man in the country, who has reached the rank of Minister of the Crown—that any one indi vidual would have been actuated by such cowardly, dastardly, and malicious actions. Little, however, did 1 think that on the first day of term, on the first appearance of the Attorney-General in his official capacity, that most liberal gentleman, of the most liberal Government, who, in his own estimation, is a most acute lawyer, akd the most liberal and candid orator that ever carne into a Court, who addresses the Jury with such smiling familiarity, with all the familiarity and confidence of an old friend, he tells you, Gentlemen, that you must do this, dist you must do that, with all the confidence and fami- liarity that he would use if he were addressing a parcel of children, and directing them how to divide a basket of gooseberries—that liberal-minded gentleman, who will lay down to you exactly what you must do in this case, as confidently as if he never intended you to have any opinion of your own, that by this Attorney-General, by that Government, I should have been brought before this Court. When the criminal information was filed by the Lord Chancellor against me, and after I had denied that the inuendoes related to him most conscientiously, this liberal-minded gent!eman proceeded against me !:1 - ex-officio. That was for the libel tried yesterday. I. think this is the seventh of the series of prosecutions, the object of which is to restrain the freedom of the Press, by distressing an humble individual, by ruining me in character and fortune, and which perhaps may put me in a situation which may speedily end my life. You have it in your power to decide whether or not the article in question mead, appears to you to be a libel, having a tend ency to bring the Government into contempt, in having a tendency to bring his Majesty into contempt; I defy the Attorney-General, from the time when I first knew how to distinguis t my r'ght hand from my left, to let ret out any charge which could impute to me the least disloyalty to the King. I will maintain that lam a more loyal man than the King's Attorney-General, and it is preposterous to charge me with endeavouring to bring the Government of the country into contempt. Such a charge, Gentlemen, you will never for one moment entertain. I wish every one of you had the Morning Journal of the last six months in your possession ; you would then see on what ground charges of disloyalty and contempt were founded, you would then ascertain what tendency my writings had to degrade the King, or bring the Government of the country into contempt. It is now six months since the article for which I appear on the floor of this Court, was written, and when it is for you, after that period has elapsed, to say, has it had such an effect, for that is the real question at issue. If you are of opinion that it has not had that effect, you are bound to acquit me, for I never can be found guilty of writing an article, the tendency of which has never been realized. On the face of the article itself, there appears the best spirit and the most dutiful obedience towards his Alajesty, and the remarks on the Duke of Wellington are freely within the bounds of fair discretion. Gentlemen, I will read you a few observations on the liberty of the Press, from one of the letters of Junius, you will then see the opinion of that eminent writer. He states that considerable latitude must be allowed in the discussion of political affairs, or otherwise the liberty of the press is altogether done away with, and then you would do away with one of the greatest national blessings. If at the time of Junius the public press was thought so great an advantage, and the discus sion of public affairs of so much importance, was it not equally so now—that was just before the breaking out of the American war, and at a time when the Ministry were placed in great difficulties, yet even in those trouble scone times they never instituted a proceeding like the one against me. And this prosecution is instituted at a time when we are not threatened with any invasion— we have no rebellion in the King's dominions—a fifteen years' permanent peace--the Revenue flourishing—lreland pacified—Spitalfield weavers satisfied with their wages— and not even the sound of discontent to be heard in the country. Is it not, therefore, gentlemen, strange that the Duke of Wellington should have fixed on such a time to prosecute me for - calling him a dangerous man. In the year 1610, Mr. Perry, of the Morning Chronicle, was charged with much a similar libel, tending to degrade his Majesty in the eyes of his people ; that alleged libel stated that until his present Majesty (George the Third) was in his grave there would he no chance of any improvement in the condition of the country. On that trial, Lord Ellenborough held that the defendant had a right to say so, for his evident intention was to show that a change of Ministry would, in his opinion, benefit the country, and did not intend by a change o f system to exc i te any d egree o f disloyalty, and continued his Lordship, there may be error in the present system, for I only know of one Being who is not liable to err. Th e resu l t o f t hi s tr i a l was, t h e honourable acquittal of M r . P erry w i t h out t h e J ury re tiringlno urafrb!em the box. Wi t h respect to the express i ons n o to his M a j es ty, th ere i s no t one b u t what e use is couchedof language of th e gr ea t e st r e v e r e nce; I relating in therefore, on that point, will not detain you long, particularly after the case of Mr. Perry, which I have drawn your attention to. I have always spoke of his ]Majesty with the most profound respect. The Attorney- General rests much upon my audaci ous assurance to pity the King. If pity is a libel, Gentlemen, then I am guilty. If yon should day by your verdict that such language is a libel, I will pe tition Parliament for a censor over the public NM; we should then have more liberty than we now enjoy; or I should like to see a Board of Controul established, with Mr. Gur ney at its head, a pair of scissars in his hand, and i nstruc tions to cut out every paragraph in the public papers relat ing to his Majesty's Ministers; we should then have better protection than we have at present. Call it an offennce, in deed, to pity his Majesty—is not the very idea mon strous? The Attorney-General does not take notice of the passage in the libel, which states there is a marked coolness between his Majesty and the Duke of Wellington. If I were to prove every word of the state ment true, still the Attorney-General would say that was no excure. I do, gentlemen, say, that it is true that his Majesty cannot enjoy the pleasure in the company of his Ministers ; and is that a libel on the Crown, when I say, that it is not his Majesty's own acts, hut arising out of the acts of his Ministers. Shortly after the passing of the Ca tholic Relief Bill, a gentleman called upon me and said his Majesty was desirous of visiting Covent-garden and Drury lane Theatres, and requested to know whether I thought there would be any strong expression of public opinion if he did. My advice was, such was the excitation of public feeling, that I would advise him not. This advice, Gentlemen, was acted open, and the King did not go._ (A laugh.) Since the passing of the Catholic Relief Bill, his Majesty has not visited any 'I beatre.—( Great laugh ter, in which the Attorney-General heart ly joined.)— Mr. A. continued :—The Attorney-General laughs; he and his party, no doubt, tb;nk that they have obtained a triumph ; let them enjoy their laugh. The next paragraph of the alleged libel refers to the Duke of Wellington.— ' What is there stated arose entirely out of the dis cussions on the Catholic question, and the strong ex citation which those discussions engendered. To show the Jury his impression of the Duke of Wellington pre vious to that time, I will read the address in the Morning Journal on the 6th of Octokr, 1828, the day on which it first made its appearance under that title. I there ex press, d the confidence I entertained is the Noble Duke at the head Of the Administration, and that I had no doubt he would use his best endeavours to extricate the country from the difficulties with which it was then labouring. I did then think that such would be the case, but now I say. Gentlemen, that a more dangerous Minister than the Duke of Wellington never existed ; but in saying this I cast no reflection on his Majesty, and who is the Duke of Wel lington ? He is not yet King of this country—although he is Prime Minister lie is still a subject, and more, he is a servant of the public, and every man in this country has a right to speak of him in that capacity i❑ what way he pleases. lie is only culpable uniess he enters his house and exposes his private and domestic affairs. If I had done what other J •urnals had done with impunity, ex. posed the private affairs, and attacked the private charac ter of individuals,then inched might I with justice have been brouaht into this Court. But, Gentlemen, I never in the whole course of my life, wrote a single word reflecting on private character. My observations have always been directed against public men, and as a subject of this country, I claim that right. 1 am charged with calling the Duke of Wellington an ambitious man, and if I said he was not, who would believe me, is not ambition most laudable; if the Duke of Wellington had not been ambitioug, woul.l he ever have conquered at Water- loo—if he had not been ambitious would he ever have been Prime Minister of England ? I am one of those who give him the greatest credit for this noble principle; with out it he never would have raised himself to his present dxalted rank. If by your verdict, this day, you say that it is a libel for calling a Minister of the Crown a danger . ous character—if you establish such a precendent, - the liberty of the Press is gone for ever. It is on your deci sion this day that the rights and liberty of the subject must stun' or fall. I again, however, fearlessly say, that every man in this country has a right to use the term in refe rence to a Minister of the Crown. Gentlemen, the libel bas been put into your hands, and it is for you to say whether it exceeds the bounds of fair and liberal discus sion. I pray you to consider the effect of a verdict of guilty as it regards me. if you say that this article is libellous, no man in future can sit down to write in safety, you will for ever put down free discussion ; and unless a Bill should pass the Legislature, to protect the Press, no man in future could speak of the Government of the country only in the language of a slave. This prosecution is instituted to crush the humble individual who now ap pears before you. Gentlemen, give this alleged libel your cool and dispassionate consideration, and then say whether or not I have written any thing inconsistent of my character as a subject of the King, or any thing calculated to bring the Government of the country into contempt. Remember, Gentlemen, this is a most serious charge as it relates to myself, it may be a subject of mirth to the King's Mini• titers, and a matter of no consequence to the Duke of Wel lington, whether lam convicted or not. Let the result be what it may, it will raise him no new friends, or create a single observation in his favour. On the other hand, if you find me guilty, you destroy my character —you take away my liberty, and deprive me of my livelihood. With these observations, Gentlemen, I leave my case in your hands, humbly submitting that the publication complained of is no libel. The ATTORNEY-GENENAL rose to reply, in so low a tone that it was some time before we could h , ar the tenor of the Learned Counsel's argument. Before he proceeded to comment upon the topics of the def.ndant, who had just addressed the Jury, he would just take the liberty of first stating his opinion respecting the liberty of the Press. He never did say that he was an enemy to the liberty of the Press, but had always contended that that liberty was best secured by having a correcting power placed over it; if, ins'ead of having ignorant men to conduct it, as was sometimes the case, it was to be conducted by en lightened, honourable, and talented persons, the Press of this country would indeed become an invaluable blessing, But when, as was sometimes the case, it indulged in ribaldry and abuse for the sake of profit—if in such cases there was no corrective, the people of England indeed would have cause to regret that there was such a thing as a free Press. He would now iirocetd to the topics of Mr. Alexander's defence. He tells you, that unkss you believe the charge imputed to him of a tendency to bring the Go vernment of the country into contempt you are bound to acquit him. I think, however, his logic is as bad as his law. Suppose a man was tried for an attempt to murder, was he to go unpunished because he did not succeed in his murderous design? He also tells you he is one of the most loyal subjects. This was the way in which persons who had seditious motives in view generally began to talk. No man dare openly declare such designs. He condemns the measure of his Majesty's Ministers, but be dare not call the King a traitor. It was a very amus ing tale, Gentlemen, that this Privy Counsellor told us respecting his Majesty's sending to ask his advice whether or net he should visit Covent-garden or Drury-lane Theatres. Can you believe such a sts.tcinent ; before I can I must have better evidence than the oath of Mr. Alexander. His Majesty, forsooth, to which the advice of a poor newspaper writer, imported from another country, and from a place no one knew where. His Majesty, Gentle men, neglecting the advice of all his sage Counsellors for that of Mr. Alexander's. " 0 tempera, 0 mores." Oh dear, what will the Press of this free country come to. Who can believe the incredible tale. I have, Gentlemen, spoken of tl e Duke of Wellington as a public man, and I have a right to speak of him in this place as a public man, and Ido not go to his private character. Ido not know whether Mr. Alexander thinks—but perhaps he doee—that if he has a servant, he has a right to cuff about and ill use that servant just as he pleases; and perhaps he also thinks that when a man becomes a public character, being a public servant, he has a right to cuff him, to kick him, and to abuse hint just as he pleases also. Bus if he does I think he will find himself mistaken. Gentlemen, you will p , :rtnit me to refer again to the \voids of the libel itself.—(The Attorney-General referre,4 again to the terms of the libel.)—Gentlemen, I am much inclined to doubt another part of wkat this gentleman states ; he says he was informed by a Noble Friend of his, closely connected with his Majesty's Minister 4, that if Sir C. Wetherell had continued Attorney General, lie would not have been prosecuted for the part he took on ti e Boman Catholic side of the question. I should like to know who that Noble Friend was. I should like to know, whether he would be disposed in this place —on the trial of this libel—to come forward and say that he would condescend, being closely connected with the af fairs of his Majesty's Ministers, to tell him what he was to do or expect. He has alluded also to the case of Mr. Perry, who successfully defended himself against a libel. Now, it appeared. that that was a misapprehension of the expressions used in the Newspapers. When Mr. Perry appeared in Court, he clearly showed that it. could not refer to any one person, there was no bad .temper —no chicanery and no malice proved to exist there. Now, it you find that this is the same, that the expressions used here are no degradation of honour—if you think it decent language—if you think it decent and reverend to use to a Sovereign—you may, of course, acquit Mr. Alexander.— But if you think, as I trust you will, that any attempt of this sort to impose on the King a measur e without his will —to have is understood that he cannot show his face to his subjects, and, therefore, ti at he it an of of pity—if you think that a degradation, and disgraceful to represent his )ilaje.ty to be in, I trust you will think that such language &serves reprobation, that you will treat it as such, and mark the writer as having justly sub tle speaks of th e number dia lectal himself to punishment. formations filed against him, should he glad tnknonfr they the number bears any proportion to the libels bn..."; published. When he complained of this, he ought to ti i told us how man y lib e l s h e h a d b een gu il ty o f. 1 tw o , I might state that the prosecutions are not equal t 0 • tenth—one fifteenth—or one hundredth, and becaus e select three, four, or five to bring before that sufficient to authorise him to complain of sr " an object of public prosecution ? Is it not rs tle i a ground for showing that he conducted this paper I d a manner, as that by th e constan t repe ti t i on o f his I t it became a question, whether Mr. Alexander We t t wield the powers of Government. or whether that de t i was to devolve upon his Majesty's Ministers ? If this e s . tleman can publish a libel on the King, then a libel oe Majesty's Ministers, another u p on th e H ouse o f Lords, ann tb ; upon the House of C o mmo ns , an d th en a libel upon ~ whole Administration, then t o re -p u bli s h those li be stating the grounds of his char ges , has he a right to se when the prosecutor overtake s him, th a t h e i s an objec t ° public persecution? Gentlemen, the se observation s, am sure, can have no influenc e u p on y our minds. l b question you will consider will be—is this language re spectful and decent to use of our Sovereign ? If you cr of opinion it is not, as I trust you will be, you will Pr o pounce that by your verdict; if you thiuk it is such 1 21 guage as might have been used—such language ash 1 would have used, and as you would hav e e ncouraged si , : body in using, then you will give your verdict for e'R Alexander. Lord TENTERDEN then summed up. The defendant having all pleaded not guilty, it became necessary for ti!,' Crown to show the connection that all of them had W i this publication. For that purpose the same evidence W e offered to-day that was adduced yesterday, and which the usual evidence that has been given on such occasion° since the passing of the Act of Parliament that required° affidavit to be lodged in the Stamp-office to the eff" you have heard read. Sa;me of the defendants W I stated that though they are proprietors of this newspaPc l yet that they were not the authors of this publication ; the same time very properly admitted by their Counsel tbs they were answerable for whatever appeared in the Papal The first question is, what was the o bject of the publication? The second question which was r aised i not a legitimate question—what has been the consequence of that publication ; because, if the object was to defa me, it is not n ecessar y t o i nqu i re w he t h er any mischief h as beer . done or not. The r ea l ques ti on consequen tly in, wag the public charge intend e d t o d egra d e t h e King in the ey e of his subjects, and t o b r i ng di s h onour an d degradaties on tl.e Ministry? It i s conten d e d by the defendan t that all this, i s l anguage o f grea t res pect towar d, the King; and th a t, th ere f ore , i t cannot b e a ssumed du waiter intended to traduce him, or to raise any imprope r feeling towards him in the minds of his people; the con'trary is contended for by the prosecution. Now evil publication is to be judged of by itself. That which has b eer said or done of any other publication, is no rule for yourjuer ment. You are to say what was the object of this particu lo publication, and what was the intention of the writer at ti ! moment. Much allusion has been made to the aupPo stt freedom of the Press ; and it might have been supposed the that freedom extends to the degree of treating his Maje st y with the most unlimited censure; but his Majesty's Minis ter° are like all other persons entitled to the protection of tin law. And although a measure way be discussed Re el ' on all its points, general calumny, and general slandet is not to be brought forward in that discussion. It dn eg i not appear, h o w ever , th a t an y such charge is mean to be made h e r e ; th e ex t e nt of the charge is, 08 t it was intend e d t o d egra d e hi s M a j e sty—to cause it to b e believed that he had become unpopular, and to excite 1' teed and dissatisfaction towards his Ministry. Hsi made these remar k s . I h ave very li tt l e m ore to offer• shall put the Paper into your hands, for it is y.t!' provinc e to judge of the question. It has been the rule of persons sitting in my s it ua ti on t o deliver their think opinions t o th e J ur y on su bj ec t s lik e t h ese , and 1 ra ther the language, or the terms of the expressions I ought now also to offer mine. think that whatever tie to look at the whole of the publication, and to co object of the writer from the whole. Dating that, I confess that I think this is a libel; but though I declare tbat . to be my own opinion, you are by no means to be bound by that, fur the verdict you are to 'return is to be there' suit of your own judgments, and of your own fair oP° nions. If you think it is a libel your verdict will ba against the defendants ; if not, it will be for them. The Jury retired at twenty-five minutes past twelve to consider their verdict. The Jury, after an absence of three hours, returne d into Court, and returned the following verdict We find the defendants guilty of a libel on his Al'' very great excitation, occasioned by the jesty, but we do not find them guilty of a libel C"' hip May belleWCat Majesty's Miuisters. We also beg to state it is our opirtiw i f that the article in question was written under feeli, n g . 4 un preeean' agitation of the time; we therefore most earnestly be g tl recommend all the defendants t o th e merc if u l c onsiderati on of the Court." Lord TENTERDEX desired the verdict to be handed tr ? to the Court, whieb was alone accordingly. THIRD EX-OFFICIO INFORMATION• The Arromaev-GeNenaa addressed the Jury on th e third information against the defendants for a libel pat' fished in the Morning Journal, of considerable length on the 16th of June 1829. He considered this as a sweepingd libel upon the whole body of the House of Commons, as, particularly upon Mr. P , el individually, and which he f elt satisfied the Jury would consider ought not to go unPW ni'hrd. The Counsel for Mr. Gutch and Mr. Fisher, hot' declined in ,king; any observations in defence, revery' ing themselves, as tilt y stated, for another occasion. , Mr. ALEXANDER defended himself at considerab'e length. lie was not aware that the trial of this informs" non would have come on so speedily. He assured t he Jury, and he hoped lie should succeed in convincing th e° the whole of the publication entirely referred only to th e House of Commons, that it was neither regul sr nor competent for a Jury to interfere upon such a question” but the Bar of the house of Commons was the place t" which he ought to be called by the Members of the Floe if either the body or any Member of that flous e felt aggrieved by the publication now before the Ceto 4 ' These observations were levelled at the House of Conn" mons, which they can puniali by a summary pruces s ; Upon what grounds did the Attorney-General come her e ; If he (Mr. Alexander) w e re t o b e fi ne d 10,0001. antle o ten years to prison. The House of Commons could al ° punish him ler the same offence. Was that the lavt er , justice of England ? Should on e t r ib una l h ave t he posy ; 1 of punishing after the offender had been already punislit; d by another. If there are tw o o r th ree tr ib una l s , t h ere w'nu' be an end at on-.e nut only to the liberty of the Press' but also to the liberty of the subject. Mr. Alexander then read several extracts, on which he commented as went along, and strenuously contended that in the alleg e libel, which was written at a time when almost all trad e ' were in distress, when the weavers at Huddersfield, Wl chester, and Spitalfields—when the manufacturers there were suffering more privations than any set of men of ti l l same rank had ever suffered in a ny o th er na tion, I was his duty, as the conductor of a new:pope' to make such observations as snuck him upon the eart le of those miseries. He cont e nd e d th a t as a f' t subject he was entitled to such a right, he considered : ci the time, that all the miseries which the people suffer on that occasion, were to be attributed to the base cti n/- pliance of ihe House of Commons i n p ass i ng t h e Bill t" which lie before alluded. He still contended, that the miseries of the people were attributable to that measur e ', and that the axe of the Reformer must he laid to the r° e , of the evil, and that Ref o rm m us t b e h a d, even if it al' at the price of the abolition of the House of Common'. Mr. Alexander concluded, with repeating the right of t he l subject to pass strictures on any depression in any brain: of trade, or upo n an y measure o f t h e L eg i s l ature Whir i led to it. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then rose to reply. Ile °b. served, that f r om th e ex t raor di nar y an d repeate d pro f 'dons by Mr. Alexander, of hi, own loyalty, he shay ta have called a whole train of wit nesses to h ave s poken i ; his charact e r. In th a t c ase th e J ury m i g h t h ave b e en ah'" to judge whether it was a single deviation by a tn n ° who had previously been one of th e mos t loyal !ye ti in the Kingdom, or whether it were one contin ue system of attack upon the Government of the county}; merely because that Government had executed a tneasur, contrary to Mr. Alexander's avowed opinions. No Mll e loyalty could be taken on his own word, and 1 , 0 did not understand the new logic by which ~ (Mr. Alexander) attempted to persuade the Jury that t l !', was not the proper tribunal to try his c a s e . Th a t spac j , e , of logic would sound much better at the bar of the 1 -1 1 0 of Commons, in arguing the gr ea t e r p ro p r i e ty of House of Commons constituting themselv es j u d ges of the l , of the fact. Was it sufficient, because the Editor 0 0 , Newspaper was opposed to any measure of the GeO r .. be ment, that he should be justified in attacking the King , Ministry, the House of Lords, and the House of Cotnal° u ' to He (the Learned Attorney-General) was very sorry detain the Jury upon a question which was so plain' , He snbmitt e d th a t this wa s a lib e l o f a most a trovlQ u- , character upon the House of Commons in particular, re , fleeting on his Majesty's Mi n i sters t h e most sca ndah ru ; and undeserved abuse, and holding up the Njoß ,