The National Register.
London, England, 1821-11-25 00:00:00

TINE KING V. G. BIERC.

The defendant, w ho was shiipman to Carlile, appeared to
receive the judgment of the Court, found guilty of publishing
tel Inin S. dodoes and blasphemous libels.
AI•• H. Cooper put in affidavits fur the defendant. Tile
first was made by Jane Carlile, who deposed that after tile
information was tiled, she went to Mr. Mauhe, sniicitor for
the prosecution, and made every possible ranee:ooo un the
part of the defendant, and proposed discharging him from
her service, in case the proceedings were stayed.
Itichaid Carlile, in another affidavit, deposed that the
defendant had been in his service since ISHO.—The deponent
tank him from his parents in the country, a boy, and lie never
supposed the law officers of the crown would proceed against
the defendant, while the proprietor of the shop and author
of the libel remained unnoticed by the prosecutors. The
deponent further stated, that he believed the religious prin-
ciples of the defendant to be different from his how ii. He
had, however, never made any enquiry respecting those prin-
ciples—all he expected flOlll the defendant as a servant was
honesty and integrity.
Several oilier affidavits gave the defendant the character
of a sit tidy mural young man, constant in his attendance at
'Jim ch.
Ali'. Cooper, as counsel for the defendant, addressed the
Cowl in mitigation of the severity of punishment. lie ad-
: venni! to the affidavits which had been read, and expiessed
siirpi ize that the Solicitor-General 'tad brought the darn-
dant up Inr judgment. He could only account for the ap-
pear:ince of the defendant on the boor of the Court, by con-
cluding that 11w Solicitor General was under the controul of
an officer of tile crown higher than himself. The defendant
shiod heroic the Court, nut twenty years of age, and cer-
tainly ler circumstances w Welt never attended a person
hi ini;lit lip for judgment. The d-fentlant was wetely a ser-
vant to this shop, ssithont any interest in like 1111hiat 411U11,
11.4%,1111•1.111till16 %%huff!, he to he pnuishrd, shit, the
pf1.,./11 us u .wowed 1111111,V the 1,4:A1 Ir•r of the idol *v.e,

.c-^__.~_._

ST 1

nut prosecuted. Tills nits nett in unison with the generous
feeling of mankind. Theic unto a noble sentiment and sy iit
in this country, which disdained to strike the servile itrasui.
meat, whist the bend and manor., i of the (silence was vul-
nerable. In a ruse like ibis the Cowl was obliged, by a
sense of duty, to pass a lenient judgment. lie made this as-
sertion open the is i,e maxim id law Nand in the commenta-
ries al 111 r. Justice Ilinckstiont. Mr. Cooper then cited the
folluwingpassaze :—" Ni;xt to doing right, the great °Wet t
in 11w administration of
.justice is to give public satisfac-
tMn." There cookd be no satisfuer in a severe punish-
ment upon a servant pia ed iii the situation oh the defendant.
It was impossible the crown could sanction such a proseru-
tion. " 1 wish," said Mr. Cooper," Kings laid that supers
abundance of informal:on Ihey are supposed to 1..)51.1.61—1
wish the King of Eugland could all 1h al passes in his do.
minima-1 would 1101 sa) K logs nee more than men, neither
would 1 allow skein to be less. The King iv know° In be a
man of feeling :toil a gentleman, and had lie known a ser-
vant was prosecuted (or the crime of lii• master he would
hale stopped it. 1 have a right to presume the defendant
bad nu knowledo of this publication ; no proof of know-
ledge of the contents of the publication was offered at the
trial."--Mr. Cooper them rnutrudb d trial there never had
been such a proceeding as 114, befort• the Court. if a wife
was excused in the rye cif law as being under the conitoul of
her husband, surely, a servant, is hu spider striin4er cuu-
trout, was also excusrable. The defendant was ;maim e
before the Court, but he had strong claims to s lenient sen-
tence. Great and enlightened slaloms had made laws to ex.
ewe crimes urged by the siurvitiA condition of the perpetra-
tors, and la this case it was not ton instill to ask the Court
to consider this young man as u person depending solely on
his employment for bread. The world was waiting for the
the severe judgment of the Court to consign the defendant to
infamy and ruin. The learned counsel had one of point
to bring before the Court. It would perhaps lie urged th. t
the defendant, by pleading Not Guilty, had aggravated los
offence, but he trusted the Court would put a e liberal
construction on that circumstance. It had been said ins
many .occasions, that a plea of guilty did not lessee an of..
fence, and persons under accusation bad been frequently re-
commended to withdraw their admission of guilt, and depend
upon a fair trial. lie concluded by deprecating any heavy
punishment upon his client, in CUIIIiegIIVIKC of his age, his
necessities, and character.
The Solicitor-Getienil spoke nt considerable length in
aggravation, considering it a case deserving of exemplary
punishment, and that he should have been guilty of a gross
dereliction of his duty if he had not called the defendant fur
judgment; and it was fur the purpose of putting down the
intolerable 11U61111te of Cartile's publications that had guided
bins in the perfurtuance of his duty.
The Court, after sonic consideration, pronounced by Mr.
Justice Bayley —'f lint the defendant be imprisoned in the
gaol of Winchester fur s; a minith,-, and give security for gond
behaviour, himself in 5001. stud two others iu 1001. each, for
seven yeats.

TUC KING N. MICHAEL. BARNES.
The defendant had pleaded guilty to an information
charging him with iiin•ring a bribe of IV. to a rrstin named
French, that he might disregard his duly, and friable the de-
fendant to land smuggled goody. The defendant, in his at -
ilavit,:alleged that he was induced to oiler the money at the
suggestion of a person named Davidson. Ile was sentenced to
he imprisoned four !maths in Horsham gaol, anti to pny a fine
of 504