The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-06-21 00:00:00

r 1

NI

' Pi

j

II

)

I

1

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

11!I

COURT OF LINO% ISENCII, Elervapalr, Jams I.

SAE [ISO v. JOBS newt.
This w an Indictment against the defendant foe printing and
publishing a libel, called " the Vision of Judgment,' of which
the late Lord Byron was the author, In a a periodical work, called
" The Liberal." The prosecution was conducted by " the Con-
stitutional Association.** It was alleged in the indictment that the
libel was intended to vilify the memory of his late Majesty, Oewrge
111., and thereby to wound the feelings of his present Majesty
sud the Royal Family. At the trial before the Lord Chief Justice.
At the sittings after last Michaelmas term, the defendant was found
yoilty, and had been attending every term since then to receive

udgment.
.Mr. A poi.rtirs (with wham RSA Mr. Coleridge, for the prose-
cution) now prayed the judgment of the Court.
Mr. Hunt immediately appeared on the thior of the Court.
The Lout) CHIEF JUSTICE then read his notes of the trial.

After which,
Mr tzcsit LETT rose and said, he had to submit to the conside-
ration of the Court, whether the defendant was not entitled to a
Lew trial. fly the roles of the Court an application for a new trial
ought to be matte within the first four days of the !erin after the
tisst trial took place. The rearm why this app....cation was not
wade sooner, was, that Air. Hunt was not aware of this rule; and.
therefore he, Alr. tcarlett, having received no instructions upon
the subject in time, he had had no opportunity of communicating
with his cheat until he saw him in Court, in consequence of the
motion on • fomnr occasion, on the part of the prosecutors, to
bring him up for judgment. As soon as he saw Mr. Hunt he
then suggested to him that he thastght it was proper that a mo-
tion for a new trial should be submitted to the Court. In criminal
proceedings the Court were in the habit of entertaining such a
motion, when the party was brought up for judgment after hearing
the Judge's report; and, therefore, he had reserved the motion
until this occasion, trustire that, in this instance. the Court would
extend their usual induft,.ce. The ground of his motion related
to the manner in which the case was left to the Jury by the Lord

Chief Justice.
The Loan CHIEF JUST ICE-1 left it to the Jury tosay whether
they thought this publication was not merely defamatory of the
suemory of his late Majesty, but also whether it was not calculated
and intended to disturb the peace and wound the feelings of his
Invent 3lejesty and his family.
M. SCA admitted that his Lordship had so left the cue
to tee Jury ; but he submitted that the case deserved some further
torsederation in two points of view; first, whether the defendant
must ov presumed to have intended that which was the consequence
e' his own act (which was the way in which the Jury had been di-
rected by the learned ;lodge); and second, assuming that to be a
jest rule of construction, whether the libel in question was pm.
p, tly the subject of prosecution, considering the political station
and character of the exalted personage to whom it related. With
respect to the that point, he had at the trial desired the whole of the
poem in question to be read in evidence, for the purpose of showing
that the real object of the author was not to slander the memory of
the late Sovereign. or wound the feelings of the present; but merely
to bring into ridicule a work published by another author, in which
'the most fulsome and unqualified panegyric was pronounced on
every act and measure of the late reign.
The Loren Cutts! JUSTICE—There was no evidence of the
publication of any such work.
Mr. SCAR I.b:TT said, it was alluded to in the poem in question,
and therefore he thought it unnecessary to lay it before the Jury, to
whom he gave credit for having some knowledge of the ordinary
events of the age, and fur understanding the general tenor of the
publication. It was impossible that any work could be prosecuted,
or successfully defended, unless its whole contents were under.
stood. In this ease, the poem was in hexameter verse, and repro
tented a mock trial, in contrast with that which was puurtrayed
to
the work of another author; and it was with the view of showing,
that the hole abject was to satirise that work, and not to libel the late
King, or wound the feelings of his present Majesty. that he de-
sired the whole of the poem in question to be read in evidence. Ile
admitted, that if a man should write a poem, or other work, with-
out direct design of wounding the feeling of a reigning Monarch,
or should compose a studied panegyric upon a dead Monarch, and I
place his virtuous actions in such a light as must shew an intention
to insult the living Monarch, he would be punishable. But framed
as this indictment was, he submitted that there was no possible,
mains of
,Proving, that the author of this work meant to wouitil the
feelings of his present !Unity. Indeed, he thought it unreasonable
to suppose, that his present Majesty's feelings could be wounded
hr any renew of the public or private character of his late Majesty.l
'l be point which he submitted to the Jury
•was, that there was'
no evidence whatever, that the work in question could have been I
written with the design of giving pain to his present Majesty's
feelings. Whether it was calculated to produce well an effect,
or not, ass not the question ; but whether such was the defendant's
fstention. The Jury were told by the Learned Judge, that they
must suppose, that every man intends that which is the cense-
quence of his own act. Now, he (31r. S.) denied the fact, that
every man must he )renamed to intend that which is the cooae-
queoce of his own acts. This was too narrow a proposition. No
man could be presumed to intend that which is the consequence of
Its ars, unless that consequence is obvious, and necessarily flows
from the act.
The Cuter Juse let —I have no note of the manner in which
I left the case to the Jury ; nor have I any distinct memory of what
I said to them ; but I have no doubt I used some such expressions
as these—'• That every man must be presumed to intend the
natural and ordinary consequences of his own act."
Mr. SCARLETT submitted, that the consequences must be so
obvious, as that no man endued with ordinary reason could mis-
take them. Many acts might be done by a man of which he could
not possibly know the consequence'. A necessary consequence
might flow from a particular act, and yet the party doing the act
might not at all intend to accomplish the object attained. If a man
is to be prnunied to intend all the consequences of his act, why, a
trtemorial, a remonstrance, or a petition, might be punished as a
libel, because some passages contained in it were calculated to give
pain to the person to whom it was addressed. The consequence ,
of the act must therefore be so obvious, so inevitable, and so ma-
nifest, as toleave no room to doubt that the party intended it, before
he is to he made criminally liable. Then, secondly, admitting
that in the case of a private individual, whose feelings were
wounded by slandering the memory of his ancestor, the author of a
libel of that kind would he criminally . responsible, yet he sub-
mitted that the same reasoning would be inapplicable in the case of
a Monarch. Conceding, as no doubt he must, that a King on the
throne is endued with the feelings of ordinary nien (though he was
bound to declare that those were not the best applicable to the
monarch of a country), yet his feelings would be naturally tempered
with a due regard to be' own station, and to the necessity and pro.
pricey of public opinion, and feeling, respecting his deceased prede-
cessor ; and therefore he was not placed in such a situation as to be
affected by any representation of the character and conduct of his
immediate enema, as a private individual might be. Ile Cllr.
Scariest) must own. as his candid and sincere opinion, that by
placing this indictment on the tiles of the Court the prosecutors
had offered one of the greatest insults to the King of this country,
that was ever offered to any monarch. It was a statement on record,
by private prosecutors, who had taken upon themselves the protee-
tion of *the reigning family of this country, that his late Majesty's
mien was attended with mach bloodshed, and waste of treasure,
and that such a representation of the character of that reign gave
great pain to the present Sovereign and his family ; it was stating
that private feelings were mixed up with his late Majesty's poli.
trial conduct ; it was stating that it was a high offence to their
reigning Sovereign, that any man in the realm of England should
presume to give any opinion respecting the political history of his
prodectessor's reign, and that any observation which aeproximated
to any thing like blame or imputation upon his tither, was so
offensive to him, that he was desirous of punishing the offender by
the strong amt of the law. Such a description of the feelings and
character of the reigning Sovereign, as his true character, he must
say, was a gross imputation upon the King. He (Mr. Scarlett)
would lay down no role as to the limits within which a writer might I
range in discussing the character of a deceased Sovereign ; but
this he would venture to affirm, that if a discussion upon the cha.
man s dead King was criminal, because it wounded the feel.
ings of a living monarch, all history, as well as all poetry, must
'crate. • Such a consequence would deeply affect the interests of
mankind ; it would be productive of the greatest calamities to the
human lace. If the successor of a Sovereign is to be placed in
such a situation as that his ear is to hear nothing of the private
character of his predee or of the opinion which his subjects
entertain of it, then history must be panegyric and fulsome
flittery. Should a rule be laid down, that whatever is incidentally
calculated to give pain to a living monarch is criminal, it was ini.
Feasible to say where that rule was to have a limit. Where was the
I,cence-of history to coinmeoce ? It not with the father of a King,
the crohibirion oath:extend to his grandfather, and great-grand.
lusher, or any remote ancestor. Atter calling the attention of the
Coun to the triune, object, and character of the work in question,
ha submitted, rm.:, that the Jury were not bound to presume that I
the defendant intacied the consequences of his own act, unless the
intention was manifest ; and second, that the OMR of a sovereign
beingdifferent from that of a private individual, a publication of
this nature was privileged.
The LORD (*DIET JrSTIOE said, that one of the inconveni-
eases of making this motion et so late a period was, that his Lord-
ship had now forgotten the precise manner in which he had left the
case to the Jury. The trial took place on the Irsh January last ;
but, according to his revellection, he left it to the Jury to say,
whether they considered this publication as tending to wound the
feelings of his present Majesty. He put to them the whole inten-
tion charged. Perhaps Mr. Adolphus had a note of die manner in
which he left the caee to the Jury.
Mr. Meteorites replied, that other hesinesa had called him
away from the Court before his Lordship'ssumming up.
Mr. COLERIDGE said, that .Mr. Panora had held his brief
at the trial, and took a note of his Lordship's address to the Jury.
Mr. PATTESON then read his note of the I.oed Chief Justice's
*summing up, which was in substance, that his Lordship had no
difficuity in telling the Jury, that to publish written calumny re.
stinting his tate 3lajeety, wasa Ebel; it was for them to say who.
thee the matter in question was published with the intention int.
puted. In deciding this question, they
.were to exercise their own
Judgment, and decide fearlesely: Adverting to the circumstance,
that this prosecution was carried on by private individvals. his
Losiehip observed, that the only way in which that mad be con-
sidered as favourable ty the defendant sae, that possibly the Co-
v,?ruitnent would have prosecuted the work, had they thought it
libellous. Ilia Lordship said he should be wanting to his station
if lie del rot expresslis abhorrence of the imputations contained
in the work respecting his late Majesty. 'Whether the other poem
alluded to contained any thing to call forth what appeared in the
work he question. his Lortl.!up could not say, because he had been
brought up in ton eevere a teete to reed Such works, even if his
judicial labeurs afforded him leisure for such a purpose. In con-
clusion, he left it to the Jury to say, first, whether this teak was

calculated to injure the Mallory of the late King; and, second,
whether it waslntended to wound the feelings of the present King?
Mr. Justice BATLEY delivered as his opinion, that the case *al
eroperly,_left to the Jury, and that there was no geoiind, for anew
trial. He had no difficulty in saying, in point aria*, that a man
must be understood to intend that which must natmilly molt
from his own act. This publication was naturally calculated to
wound the feelings of the King and the Royal Family, and there-
, fore the defendant must be presumed to have that object in view.
I Fair discussion upon the character and conduct of Kings ought to
be protected ; but privileged discussion was that which was
founded upon the statement of real facts, not a conclusion drawn
without premises or facts, to support it. Her. the libel contained
the strongest reflections upon the late King, and charged hint,
amongst other offences, with being the greatest foe to freedom.
Such a publication Was calculated to wound the feelings of the pre-
sent Sovereign end the Royht conclusion, there al Famil. and therefwas noore, thin
reason
that
the Jury hail drawn the rig for,
disturbing the verdict.
Mr. Justice 110LROYD and Mr. Justice LITT LEDALE were of
the same opinion.
The LORD Cuter JUSTICE expressed his surprise that this
motion should have been made, because, according to his reco-
lection of his summing up, he had presented the case to the minds
of the Jury in a manner the most favourable to the defendant.
Admitting that some part of the publication in question was in.,
tended as an answer to another work, by another author, and that
certain fictitious characters were supposed to be speaking, yet
there were some parts of the poem in which the poet spoke in his
own proper person. That his Majesty must have felt strongly
these imputations upon the character of his father, might be fairly
judged trout his Majesty's Motto at the late coronatiou--
" Propel.° jam jure online peterno."
Rule fur a new trial refused.
An affidavit Was then put in on behalf of Mr. Hunt, in which
he stated that lie had wholly ceased to publish the Literal, which
had been discontinued; but that, with the consent of the Noble
Author, he intended to publish a new edition of the Vision
Judgment, expunging those passages which were stated in this in-
dictment to be libellous. Ile had the authority of the Noble
Author fey stating that the work in question had been composed
and published as an answer to another publication, in
English
hexameters, bearing the saute title, of which Robert Southe,
was the author, in whose work adubition, almost amounting to
profaneness, was bestowed upon his late Majesty's reign. That
the object of the Noble Author was neither to libel his late Ma-
jesty, nor to give pain to his present Majesty, but to give a jug
picture of that memorable reign, contrasting it with the principles
of true government under a limited monarchy.
The Loao Cuter' JUsTiCE asked if there were any affidavits
for the prosecution ?
Mr. ADoLPHUS put in some affidavits, but upon considesation
withdrew them.
The Loan CIIIT.F JUSTICE then desired to know if Mr. Scar-
lett had any thing to address to the Court ?
Mr. SCACLETT declined saying a thing.
Mr. A1)01.'111.11; then shortly addressed the Court. With re-
spect to the libel, the Learned Judge in his summing up, and the
Jury by their verdict, had pronounced its character. It was far
from bin wish to press hard upon any individual standing before the
Court for judgment, but he could nut help observing, that it was a
gteat mistake with respect to the liberty of the press, to suppose,
that if any individual, living or dead, should happen to be too
highly praised by his friends or admirers, it was competent for a
public writer to take up every thing that a venomous spirit could
devise, to point him out to the odium and execration of posterity.
If a man's tomb-stone be no protection to his memory, better that
be die and be forgotten at once, than that the praises of his friends
shall draw upon him the malice and defamation of his enemies.
He would allow that the character of a King was public property,
and was justly open to fair criticism ; but if no regard were paid to
his private feelings, his high station would not give him that pro.
teetion which the law afforded even to the meanest subject. Of
the author of the work in quest? 'ii, he would say nothing; his
name could only be mentioned with sorrow ; be was gone to his
own judgment since its publication, and therefore his situation for-
bade him making any severe reflections upon his memory. He
(Mr. A.) had only to pray the Court to pronounce such a judgment
us would be sufficient to protect the interests and feelings of his
Majesty, without pressing a ith unnecessary severity on the de-
felidant.
Mr. COLERIDGE, on the same side, said, he should not have
said a word. but fur the allusion to his friend Mr. Southey, whose
name had been mentioned. A more independent or upright man I
did not live, and he should be wanting in duty to him if he did
not bear public testimony to his character.
Mr. SCARLET! said, that he had not even mentioned the name
Of Mr. Southey ; and certainly nothing which tell from his lips
could be construed into disrespect towards that gentleman. He
spoke only of his publication, not of his name or character.
The COURT proceeded to consider the sentence.
. Mr. Justice BATLEY pronounced the sentence of the Court in
terms to the following effect:—" John Hunt, the Jury found you
guilty of printing and publishing the libel now before the Court.
Tbe Court have no reason to suppose that you are the author of the
porn which you so printed and published ; they imagine that you
printed and published it with other views; that your object was,
a great degree, profit. The Court, looking at the title of the pub-
lication as well u such portion of the contents as have been more
particularly selected far our notice as well as that of the Jury,
cannot help expressing their disapprobation of the libel, and their
deep regret that any circumstauces should have induced you to
publish it. It is nut necessary for me to make any comments on
it ; the Court cannot view it as resulting from the spirit of fair
discussion or allowable satire. In your affidavit, you say that you
are about to prepare a new edition of this work, with other pro-
ductions of the same author, but that in such re-publication you
shall expunge those passages which the Jury pronounced to be
libellous. lam not aware of all the contents of this work. There
may be other passagesequally objectionable with those brought
Wore the Court; it, therefore, you republish the work, even
omitting the passages now specially pointed out to the Court, you
will bear in mind that you do so at your peril- Sbouldyou re-
I publish any part of the work, and should any of the passages in
such republication be complained of, and brought before the
Court, after this warning, the Court will know how to deal with
you for such offence. The sentence of the Court on you, John
Bunt, for your present offence, is, that you do pay to the King
fine of 1001.; that you enter into sureties for five years, yourself in
1,0001. and two sureties in 500!. each and that you be imprisoned
in the custody of the Marshal of the Marshalsea till such fine be
paid, and such sureties given."
The defendant paid the tine, entered with two friends into the
required securities, sad was discharged.]

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, SATURD►Y, JUNE 19.

FROMONT COI:PLASM

•
This was an action brought to recover the sum of 2001. due to
the plaintiff, as rent for some premises hired by the defendant. It
appeared that these parties had once been in partnership in run-
ning a torch from Bath to London, the profits of each party bring
calculated according to the number of miles covered by his own
horses. There was a sum of 25fJ. due to the defendant on the
partnership account, and this sum he claimed to set off against the
present demand. The Chief Justice, at the trial, determined that
a partnership debt could not form the subject of a set-off in this
action t and the Jury accordingly gave a verdict for the plaintiff.
A motion was now made to set aside that verdict, and to enter
a nonsuit ; but the Court saw no reason to disturb the verdict, and
the motion was therefore refused.