The National Register.
London, England, 1820-12-04 00:00:00

OTFfbkS.

In this .1 rule to show cause why there should not be
a new trial, was obtained by Mr. Doninan, but it ap-
peired the rule mill no. been draten uir, and the Court
allowed it to stand carer to the first clay ut. next Tenn.

SEDITIOUS LINEL.-lIIE LING V GISEATHEAU

't tie Silliciii,r-General I.raye,l the judgment of lily
COUII oil the defend:tat, con% icted of piitilisaing a sedi-
tious libel concerning the t%lknicoesier Meeting, which
appeared its the Coventry paper, of which the defendant
is

Mr.Jostice Best read the report of the trial, which
cattle on at the Summer A.ssises fur the County of
IVarwick.

The libel was cal( ulated to excite persons to rebellion,
by slat ng that the Nlancliesier Yeomanry Cavalry were
murderers. It also reflected grossly on the King for
having approved of their conduct. The defendant. in
his attiLyit in iiiitig,ation of punishmeni, complained
iliac he was the victim of a conspiracy, inasmuch a 3 the
Jury had heed packed by the Master of tile Crown Office.
Tire libel he described to b. taken from a work pub-
lished in London, which the Attorney-General had not
thought proper to notice. The defendant. alter his affida-
vit had been read, addressed the Court, and alludine to the
conduct of Hunt and others. when they received judg-
ment, observed, that he had heard those persons appeared
~More the Judges with the teeing inert woulu have woo
had perhumed a meritorious service. lie was under the
same leeling, believing he had done no wrong.

'f he Solicitor-General, on behalf of the proserwtion,
said lie had but lone to observe. The defendant haul
slated that he took the libel from a pamphlet. lie
could only say, the A ttorney-C;etieral and hint•elf hail
hever heard of that pamphlet. Solicitor-General
then read the strong part of the hurl, and cititeniled
that it was calculated to produce the geatrA uhtsclhiel
Mr. Justice 11.1yley, addressing the defendant sant—
" Von are to rveeive the judgment of this Court, con-
victed of publishing a hlxl by a Jury selecteo 111 the ordt
Miry mode. 'lite libel is one of the most lIIISCiIIt W 1.15
Millie:ley. It Is MOM unjust. An unfortunate event had
taken ',lice at Manchester, in consequence of which
Ines were lost. The libel in question imputes to the
troops that they were murderer., and if they had been to
be trued for the crime of murder, I ask you, judging of
your own case, to say, whether every man is nut mulled
to have a fair trial before an unbiassed Jury?
The Learned Judge con:luded by passing sentence on
the defendant, namely, to pay a fine ul 501 be imprisoned
two years in Warwick gaol, and fiat?' sureties for five
years, himself in vow. and two in 1(101. tacit.
Alter sentence, Mr. Lewis asked if it was usual
for persons in his situation to be imprisoned in solitary
cells.
Mr. Justice Bayley said thi Court made no order for
111101 C01111111:111C111.
Tne deu.uidant was nuke!' ow of Court.
TIBESD•T, NOV. es.
_ _ JEIN• S. DAVISON.

Air. Gllllll'y TIIII% finiTiein(lgtOr:;:o ITrie Court on
the deletsdatit, cum IOC(' 111 lllMl;siling a blasphemous
libel.

11r. J. - • Bayley' delivered the judgment of the
Court, a. d aft ads ertim,, to thepurta of the Scriptures
wineit the libel iad vilified, it was necessary, he said,
that sociei) s. Id be proaxled against all attacks 4)1 this
son, which struck at toe root of human happiness.
'l•he defendant ss is sentenced to be imprisoned two
ye.irs in the gaol of Oak hall, (Rutla:idshire), and to find
suretios for his good behaviour fur hve years, himself iii
SOI. and two others iu vol. each.