The National Register.
London, England, 1821-06-03 00:00:00

TUB 16.1)161 U. THOMAS PLYNDALL..

The Solicitor General moved the court for judgment
upon Thomas Flyndall, of the Wester* Luminary, who
was convicted at the last assizes for the county of Devote,
held at Exater, el a false, scandalous, and degrading
libel upon her Majesty the Qoeen 1 The defendant put
in a long affidavit, slating, that he has twelve children,
nine of whom were dependant upon hint for support,
and that if he was imprisoned for any length of time at a
place uistant from that where he carried on his business.
(Exeter), it would be ruinous to himself and family.—
The affidavit coutained nothing of moment-Imin read—
the defendant addressed the court at sonic length from a
manuscript which he held in his hand; he stated, that
the publication in question occurred in the regular dis-
charge of his boututen duty, as a conductor of a news-
paper, which required the notice of public events. That
his attention had been called to the subject by the pub-
lication of the report of the committee of the House of
Lords, appointed to iiivestigate charges against the Queen
...which report impunged her Majesty's conduct in se-
verer
terms than he hadjused in commenting upon it
defendant then (after expressions of his poverty)
reiterated the min which must befal hunt and his affairs,
if he was imprisoned at any distance front his usual placa
of residence, and also called the attention of the court
to the injury he had already sustained by assault and
popular violence, in consequence of this prosecution.—
Ile submitted, that he had already suffered enough for
his offence, which he repeated was not intentional.—
Ile had uniformly been the supporter of the royal family,
the laws, and the government of his country; and the
jury before whom he was tried, who knew his character
in the country, had most earnestly and particularly re-
commended, that he should suffer the most lenient pu-
nishment which the law could possibly inflict. He was
now extremely sorry for the offence lie had committed.
The Solicitor General, in reply, denied the peculiar
right claimed by the defendant of acting upon, or even
publishing the report of the House of Lords. As a
journalist he (the defendant) contended Mr his right to
comment upon public events. It was true that he had
this right—certainly not peculatily, but in common
with all the subjects of this tree country. Bit it was
not for the free exercise of such a right he stood there
for judgment this day, hut Mr a foul and infamous libel
upon tier Majesty the Queen, and which was published
at a period calculated more than any °thee to aggravate
the offence. It was true lie had been recommended by
a jury of his neighbours to great mercy and lenity. lie
(the Solicitor General) had no desire to reduce the value
of that recommendation, which, he presumed, was given
by vasons well qualified to form a proper judeinant of
his general character and conduct. Ile had also sworn
that tie had a family of twelve children, nine of whom
were dependent upon hun for support. These were
circumstances upon which the court would exercise
their discretion; and as the defendant had expressad his
contrition for the offence, lie had no wish to aggravate
the circumstances of the case. AI ter the j s had
eousulted about let minutes on the lit nen.
Mr.Justiee 11:yley ruse to proliaUlice jialainetit. He
said, that the delvuiiant had Leen Immo guilty of what
was truly descrii.ed as being a Mul awl infamous libel on
her Majesty the Queen—a libel too, which was pub-
lished at a period well calculated to aggravate the cha-
racter of the (deuce. Titere was nothing inure important
to the due administration of justice, than the party
whose conduct was imptimtwil, should go unprejudiced
before a constitutional tribunal —lt was the wisest and
titOst leading maxim of the laws of this kingdom, that a
person should be presumed • at •l the contrary
appeared in due course of law. The defendant had not
only disregarded. this maxim of law, which it ought to
have been his first duty to have obeyed, but had added
other charges against her Majesty, which were properly
destanated in the loill,:tnietit as beingealculated to defame
and slander the character of. tier Majesty the Queen.-
Ihe defendant had said, that he bad uniformly sup-
ported the reigning family upon the throne ; he shouldh.ave recollected that her Majesty tv ss the Consort of the
king who Sat vu the tltrulle, and that She Was, manly