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

THE NAT

;uric. be always guarded against such a precedent ? Was
like the defendant's ever likely to occur again ? His case
solitary. Other printers had either not been sent to distant jails;
or their banishment thither had not prejudiced the conduct of
their papers. The law, it might be said, considering nothing but
the act for which the publisher bad made himself respbnsible ;
otherwise collusion might evade it : but would the law in no case
discriminate ? How far was this agencyheld to extend ? What,
' if the agent, in a fit of lunacy, were to Insert a paragraph which
amounted to high-treason, would the Jury, therefore, send
him to the scaffold ? Where, then, did they draw the boundary ?
The def-ndant impressed upon the Jury, that by Mr. Fox's Act
they were become the Judges both of the law and the fact of
libel ; and were bound to acquit, if moral guilt be not undeniably
established. The case of Mr. Reeves established this; in which
the Jury found the publication improper, -but denied the cri-
minal intention of the defendant in publishing it. If Mr. Fox's
Act did not bring within the purview of the Jury the moral
guilt of the publication of libel, it was wholly nugatory. It bad
been held, that the declaration of criminal intention was a mere
'natter of form ; and Lord Mansfield, upon the trial of Miller
for publishing Junius's Letter to the King, and of Baldwin for
the same publication, had held, that the words false, scandalous,
and malicious, were matter of legal inference ; but the Jury de-
cided the contrary, and found the defendants not guilty. Upon
the trial of Owen fora libel on Alexander Murray, Esq. in 1752,
Pratt, Chief Justice, afterwards Lord Camden, held, that cri-
minal intention was not proved; and directed the Jury to acquit
the defendant. In the case of Ahnon the bookseller, Glynn,
Serjeanr, moved for a new trial, upon the ground that the ser-
vant did not sell the libel with the privity of his Master. fn the
case before the Jury, was there any subterfuge ? Was there not
much to allow for, and little to condemn ? In Hilary Term,
1729, a woman was prosecuted as the publisher of a treasonable
libtl, who bad been long bedridden, but who served in the shop.
It was held by the Chief Justice, that she did not know of the li-
bellous intention; and the Attorney-General withdrew a Juror.
The defendant concluded by pressing upon the Jury, that his
life would be dependent upon another imprisonment; and in-
stanced a late example of the effects of that species of punish.
ment producing first despondency, despair, and delirium, and
ending in premature death. It might be urged against him, that
he continued the publication of his paper from motives of lucre;
—that might be attributed, with equal justice, to the soldier,
or, indeed, to the pleader. If he had acted upon that motive,
he had not met with success ; so the heavy hand of the law had
wrested from him the greatest portion of his bard-earned pro-
fits. He recommended his case to the sympathy, and to the jus-
tice of the Jury ; and added, at the request of his legal advisers,
that the exception in point of law, which be had taken to the
information, was not done at theiAnstigation.
At the conclusion of his defence, Mr. White was asked, whe-
tter be meant to call witnesses to speak of what he bad opened.
Lord ELLENBOROUGII said, that the evidenFe he had stated
would only go in mitigation, and not to acquittal ; but his
Lordship wished to know whether the defendant would
prefer having it on his notes, or by affidavit before the Court
hereafter.

Tie defendant at first chose to wait ; but the Foreman of the
Jury saying it would be more satisfactory to his mind to hear it,
the defendant called his witness.
Lord Ecceigittaoucm told the Juryman to what extent only
it would affect this case. Every printer was responsible for
what was printed at his press ; otherwise, the /11Dailit a man
geti into gaol, he might open his engine fur all orris of libel
with impunity.
'The defendant said, that he did not intend to fall hivyrit-
ness, that the Attorney-General might not have tke benefit of
replying.
Lord ELLINNORbUCIL—He has that benefit whether you do
or not in this case, if he choose to exercise his right.
The defendant then called his son, John White who said that
he visited his father is prison every day, and acted as his amanu-
ensis. He knew of every article ther wrote for the Paper
previously to its bring sent to London. The paper inestion
reached the defendant only on the Monday after it w$ pub-
lished. He was with his father from twelve o'clock on the
.Sunday of its publication, and had been so for many days previr
°may. To the best of the witness's belief his father never knew
of the libel till after it was printed. The defendant had not
been employed in writing or reading any such article, to the best
of the witness's belief. If his father bad seen it tn manuscript,
the witness must have known it.
Upon his cross-examination by the Atkormey-General, he said,
he did not know who was the author cf the libel. When asked
wliether he had net heard his lather say whose it was, he
asked Lord EllenbOrough if he was bound to answer that

question.
lord ELLlollloltoUoll.—Certainly.

Lord ELL E N/10 RO Dan refined trehear the Csentekwho,te
said, had volunteered himself into a situation periketlynew ; and
the Court expected that the Bar would set the public an example
in preserving the order of justice,, z
The defendant complained loudly of injustice; and Lord
ELL E Naeik OUCH cautioned him nets injure himself by such
unfounded complaints. -
The 'witness said; be Might have bed his father say the libel
was written by eh elder brother. Thh-biother corresponded
with his father once or twice a week. The-libel wax never con-
tradicted in the paper, which was publiShed till now, but which
had changed its propripter, the witneits'sbrether having become
so since his father came to' Witt. 'The brother conducted the
paper while the father was in peborsl •
Upon hie -examination, behnew that his brother had a dis-
cretionary latitude as to articles under the head London, as the
libel was. Such articles were written the latest in the week,
and must be left to-in agent's discretion.
The Attorney-General thought it his duty to say a few words
in reply. This was his privilege in an ordinary case, atter a
defendant had called withesses; and would be so in this, whe-
ther lie had or had 'not. The defendant bad first objected that
the offence was not committed in the parish and ward stated in
the information ; and claimed'the same benefit as a burglar or a
murderer, of an error in the proceedings. The Attorney-Ge-
neral wouldlake • the case of murder : That offence must be
proved in the same county as the indictment charged, because
the Jury must be of that county; but the pariah was a mere
matter of forcha.• and eve)? murder in London was stated in the
parish of St. -k Bow, in the of Cheap; and execu-
tions had been7ulered,wilhOut any body's dreaming of taking
an exception to it. The Learned Counsel of the defendant very
wisely disclaimed all advice of such an objection's being taken
to-day ;and theAttorney-General was almost ashamed to refute
it. All that the defendant had urged might have been properly
urged as matter of mitigation ; but it bad no bearing as to the
guilt or innocence of the defendant under thb information.
The defendant had endeavoured to excite much prejudice
against the Attorney-General, and had offered to give up the
author of the libel, if he would have dropethe prosecution
against the defendant. 'fhe Attorney-General Could not enter
here into the discussion of what bad passed between him and
the defendant out of Court but this be would say, that no pub-
lisher of a newspaper had ever less reason to complain of seve-
rity than the present defendant. He would go tarther., and say,
that none had ever been treated with ► greatbr degree of lenity.
The defendant had endeavoured to 112131011 e upon the Attorney-
General terms which he could net condescend to accept. The
defendant did not dispute the libel, tipon which the law made a
different comment from him; nor did he deny its tendency to
excite disaffection among the soldiers, or to slander his Majesty's
Ministers. -.He only said, " It-was not my fault that I published
the libel; it was the law's." but let the detWidant recollect,
that the offence he had formerly been guilty of called fur the
sentence of the law; that be plie.ed himself in Dorchester Jail;
and nothing was more unjust than for him to impute to the
law a confinement which he brought upon himeitf. Having
brought himself into prison by one offence, was He to be per-
mitted to arnd out firebrands; and then say, I ant not answer-
able for the mischief they inty occasion. When int Attorney-
Generitl asked the witness who was the author of this libel, he
knew front the defendant that it wets his own ion; and from
that time to this bad no contradiction or disapprobation of it
appeared in big paper. This, then, was a mere pretext ; or, if
not, why did not the very next Sunday produce the antidote to
the poison ? This might have been done. without disclosing
who Was the author of the libel. - The defendant had (tidy to
state-obit his confinement subjected him fo Artiploy another
Editor of his paper ; that be had seen the libel with concern ;
and that he desired it not to be understood as declaring his prin-
ciples. If he had really repented, the road was open to him ;
and be ought to have takt n the earliest opportunity of making
restittnietr and reparation. The Attorney-General desired the
Jury to bring as much fivour toward-4 the defendant as they
would ; and he desired the defendant might have the benefit of
their Mout: still, could his own friends, nay his relations pre-
tend, that if he had repented o. the libel, he would not have
contradicted it on the earlist opportunity ? His Lordship would
tell the Jury, that, by law he who gave his name to the
Stamp-office, as responsible for a pplilication, was answerable
for every thing that appeared in that publication. It was, there-
fore,tbat the law required his name; and the law wonldbe
mere stalking-horse, if it were answered by saying, that the de.
fendant had no cognizance of the libel.
Lord ELLE
This was an
White. The
yublication;

lONAL REGISTEL
a case I I The defendant interposed, and Mr. 11.4.. awes objected to the
3C Wasquesti a.

no cognizance of the libel.
ENSDAOIIGIi then proceeded to charge the Jusi.
indictment for a libel against the cletipdant,'Heng
e first thing which was to be proved was the fact of
and if, after the notice he ba.d giten at the Salop.