The National Register.
London, England, 1811-11-03 00:00:00

'NFL REGISTER.

i ar-
:here
Vim rust
111 tlee e :eyfej .ncl-
lyitllc right. . eV." .. eto
ciotermine—whetheir he shotilTeptiduct his der ,hi in self, or
whether he should_ employ willst.l; but they whonnse to de-
fend- theneselves alwaya,Sncurecti the danger of injoring their
case, by lettieg out facts eitich the discretion of
sotoisl wo
the
have thourht it more prettelent to.conceal. In thi respt4et,
present defendant had inaprudently gdueitted that, whien kif
have
he
))i
had left his defence to blacouneel, would, probably, t;
been admitted. If, howl erp he bed not been direct!
,Instru-
mental in the oulnication" c„,llita libel, the Jury must recollect;
r
that he bad taken no pains id., countetatt its melignity. I In call-
ing witnesses, the defendant,Vecl made ael titinecessa ey parade and
display of evidence; the object'cif which appearid i'4rely to be,
that those matters might he plactdion the Judge's notes of the
trials Which Might otherwise more regularly bebrotight forward
by affidavits in mitigation of punishment. It was no defence in
law, to say, that he was not the writer of the libel; be was
lqually responsible if it were inserted by his authorized agents;
lie who does a thing by the hands of entailer, is as responsible
;s if he had done it himself. If that wete vot the
e law,
mwiermit
t
mischief* might not every proprietor of a newseapr co
with impuni y ? He might employ a machine which should
with
be
constantly at work to infect and poison the eubilc mind
his own malignity • hie types might be always ready to disseini-
nate libels and calumnies ; and yet he himself might shut his
eyes, and be determined to see nothing or know nothing of the
mischiefs that he was doing. He might swear, and get others to
swear, that he had never seen the libel for which he evasprtoe-
cured. This, however, would not satisfy the law. He would be
still responsible for all the mischiefs done either by himselfor his
Authorized agents. This was a doctrine upon N-N- li ich there could
be oo doubt ; it was establiShed and recognised its law by every
Judge and every lawyer whom he had ever known since his ac-
quaintance with Courts of justice. The defendant had quoted
eeveral expressions of different lewyere in their arguments; but
it was of very little consequence what Mr. Kettleby or any
other lawyer might have said in the management of their clients
causes. He knew many men of the first authority in the pre-
sent flay, who would he very sorry to be held to whatever opi-
trions they might have maintained in arguments at the bar. He
felt it his duty to lay it down as the. unquestionable law of the
land,—the law which to all the subjects of this realm is the se-
curity for every blessing which they enjoy, and the protection
from every mischief to which they would otherwise be exposed,
that the proprietor of every newspaper is responsible for the
contents of his paperewhethee written by eiruself or,any other
person. This had frequeetly leen determined to he the law,
even in cases where the sickness of such proprietor made it
absolutely iftnpossible for hint to know what was inserted in
bis paper. Circumstances of this nature, had, however, al-
ways their proper weight; when urged at a fit time in miti-
eetion of puttishwer rt. He hail seen twenty printers on the floor
(A the Court of Eiog's leeich, who had swum to t hit- ebselute
ignorance of the insertion of the offensive :.rticle: and such alli
tlevits were aleriays allowed their due weight at a proper time.
The defendant had pressed strongly upon the Jury the length of
his imprisonment, and the consequent impossibility of superin-
tending the articles in his paper. It might, however, have been
expected that so long an imprisonment would have served as a
caution to him to abstain from the pul)lication of libels. If his
means of subsistence were entirely derived from the conduct of
a journal, it might have been supposed, that after so severe a
warning, he would have felt more than ever the necessity of
superintending the articles which were to be inserted, and
keeping out what was libellous. It might have been expected,
that he would have been particularly cautious in the choice of
hisatgents; and that he would have found it necessary to exer-
cise a cousiderable degree of superintendance and controul. On
fee contrary, it seemed that he left the management to his son,
with a discretionary power to insert whatever lie might think
proper. If, howeyer, a libel had found its way into a paper
sarhich was directly contrary to its usual tanour, and an apology
!lad been speedily pille, the case would not then, in all pro-
.bability, have beet: selected for prosecution. If the pi-eent de-
fendant had really ,disapproved of the article in question, as he
now protesses to disapprove of it, why did he not takes-some
means of nianifestiog les disapprobation in his own 'paper ? 'The'.
defendant in the course of his argument had taken, different ob-4'
jections to the information, which he called a foolish and false
record. His first objection was to the publication being stated
.to having taken place in the parish of St. Mary-le-bow. This
was, however, an usual description in law ; aed it was not to
be expected, that the rulei .of law, established for wise pur- t
poses, were to bend to the suggestions of every unlearned de- ,
teialant. How many convictions had taken place upon indict-
Extents for robberies and other criminal (deuces, alleged gene-
* • .

rally in the parish of St. Mary-le-how, In the ward of Cheap,
whereas, in fact, they were in a different parish and ward : and
yet, no man had ever before thought it consistent with modesty
to make such an objection. The defendant had very pi operly
exonerated his legal advisers from any blame in taking such an-
objection, for it was one which he could not belieVe that any
Barrister would make. If the offence was laid in the proper
county, there Was no occasion for the
.parish to be expressly
stated; and the conerant practice was not to specify the parts- •
f ular parish. In burglaries, however (a fatal flaw in an indict-
!tient for which had been quoted as a precedent by the de-
fendant), the reason of the thing was different. Since that was
a local offence, it was necessary to describe the situation of the
house which was broken into; and, therefore, the misnomer
of the place was justly fatal in the case which the defendant had
cited. The same accuracy of loCal description was not ne-
cessary. in setting out other offences.. As to its next ob-
jettion, that the indictment had falsely charged him with
a criminal intention,' the rule Which pervaded • the criminal
as well as the civil law, was, that a man is responsible for
the acts of his agents. The law collects the intention from
the act itself. If any man with his eyes open were to strike and
wound his Lordship with a deadly weapon, it would be no satin,
faction to him for the man to say he did not intend it. Such a
man would he as mad as the cooler of Ercilla, who went about
shooting every man whom be thought mischievous to the etats.
His plea was,—it is true I have killed dila hr that man; but my
intention was good: I meant to benefit the State. Men must .
generally be presumed to intend that which they do. A man,
therefore, who chooses to conduct a newspaper, and sets up
somebody else, who 'circulates libels through its mean*, must be
presumed to intend the circulation of such libels ; and he must
beeconsidered as having done that which he has so Caused to be
done. He must also be presumed to have sanctioned that which
he never thought proper to express any disapprobation of. As
to Mr. Reeves's case, which the defendant had cited, that stood
upon very different ground ; his Lordship was in the cause, and
felt perfectly satisfied, at the time, with the verdict of the Jury,
and knew that many high in authority agreed with hint. 'The
Jury thought the publication of Mr. Reeves a very improper one,
but acquitted him on the ground of his not writing it with the cri-
minal intention imputed to hitn. In this opinion of that puha.
cation he eetirely coincided. Mr. Reeves had been charged
with writing his book with the intention of villitying the House
of Lords and Commons ; but it appeared to him, that he had no
such intention; and that what gave (offence was nothing but nee,
tuphor run mad. Mr. Reeves had got hold of a metaphor,-e-the
trunk of a tree; and he called Monarchy that trunk, and
the two Houses of Parliament the branches, which might be
lopped off without destroying the trunk. Now, as to tbe ques-
tion which of the parts of our Gove-rntnent was the originultstem,
and which were to be considered the adjuetts, was a question
more of antiquarian research than of real importance ; and Mr.
Reeves was a great antiquary. His Lordship was, therefore,
satisfied with that verdict, because he really believed that Mr.
Reevec, had not the intention that was imputed to him ; and'his
reasee for so believing was collected Isom the book itself. This
was the great difference between the two cases.
,In Mr. Reeves's
case it was front the perusid of the writing charged as a libel,
that the Jury formedeheir opinion that there was no criminal
intention; but in this case he believed that no such conchision
could be drawn from the writing itself. • As to the law of libel, he
slid not seek, nor ever had sought, to abridge the privileges which
the Constitution gave to Juries. He must say, however, that he
could hardly conceive that any sensible man could entertain a doubt
but that the article for which the defendant was now prosecuted
did tend to disgust our soldiers, upon .whote valour and good
conduct the defence of the country, and every thing dear to us,
now mainly depend. He could have no doubt but that Publi-
cations tending to alienate the soldiery, and directly defaming
the Government, were libels. He should wish to know •by
what law it was that the very lowest 011icei• in the State may
be protected from calumnies, but that those who fill the highest
and most important offices in the Administration are to find no
similar protection. He by no means wished to abridge the pri-
vilege of discussing temperately the measures of any Admites-
tration; but such discussion ought tube condncted innocently and
decently. To charge the Members of-the Administration gene-
rally with corruption was clearly libellous : and to do so on an
occasion where corruption could not enter, was foolish. It was
most evident in the present case, that granting medals to all
. Officers of a certain rank, who had seen a certain service, could
not answer any purpose of corruption, and that extending them
to every soldier in the army would have made the distinction of
Ino value. The defendant, in the Publication before them, spoke
of " the equivocal and barren victories of Roleia, Vimiera' Cus
retina, and Talavera." Nov, although circumstances had pre-
vented results as important as we could have wished following
those battles, still he conceived there was something in them in
which Englishmen naturally felt apride; and as to the valour 01
•

s~=':~

4504 H E I.N 4)010
()face of his intention 4n.publish such ,lour al at No. 23, Wa
wick-square, there couldyet remain any doubts Whether the
was sufficient legal proof of. the publication, those doubts niti
have been compl:Aely removed b.}( tlke courq which the defen
ant had taken. It was certainly; Ills nght urettkry defendant
_ ..5.....1,1-"...p.ndoet. his detente hign.self,