The Sun.
London, England, 1820-01-29 00:00:00

Mt. WILLIANts exercised the right claimed.

John Chorlt on, a respect able looking young
man, took his station in the passage between the
table and the dock.

On the Bench were the Rev. W. R. Hay,
Messrs. C. W. Ethelstone, and -- Horton ; J.
Norris, R. Fletcher, J. Silvester, and J. Watkins;
Captain Bit ley, and Mr. Moore.
Mr. STARKIE opened the case. This was an
indictment against John Chorhon for libel. It
charged that he, being an ill-disposed and mali-
cious person, and maliciously contriving to bring
the soldiers of onr Sovereign Lord the King into
discredit and disgrace, by charging them with
murder and cruelties, had publi.shed the following
libels—( Fide Manchester Observer, Saturday, Au•
gust 28, 1819

" Peter Loo Massacre !! !—Just published, Ni. I, price 2d,
of Peter Loo Massacre, containing a full, true, and faithful
account of the inhuman murders, wounding's, and other mon-
strous cruelties exercised by a set of internals {mis-called
soldiers) upon an unarmed and distressed people, who were
constitutionally assembled to consider of the best, most legal,
and most efficient means of alleviating their Unparalleled suf-
fei lugs, when they were broken in upon
.by bands of armed
ru gians, who murdered many, and cut and maimed hundreds
more ina horrid i:!anner."

Mr. WILLIAMS addressed the Jury.-11 in this
case any expectation was entertained, that in its
discussion any genet at principle, important or
valuable, on the subject of free discussion, was in-
volved, he who entertai,ed that expectation took
a wrung view of the question, and formed a mis-
taken judgment of its nature; because, if he un-
derstood the subject, there was no one point in
this case to which Englishmen were ever alive ;
there :vas no question connected with the free.
door of the press, there was no topic ever used
by the advocates of that freedom ; there was no-
thing of this description touchal upon by the en-

\\.\

eitiiry of this day. He had not formed this opi-
nion lightly, because, unless they could at once
discover on the face of this publication that it
was a libel, he would not ask their verdict. It
would be utterly vain to look in the publication
for any -one argument, fur any one point
of discussion, for any narrative ; it was plain,
simple, undisguised, unvarnished abuse ; in
other words, a libel. He was ready to Omit,
that in all cases of public discussion or political
libel, as it was called, a Jury, as well as the
whole of the country, must feel considerable emo-
tion. Nay, further he would say, and he would
always contend, whether he was for the prosecu-
tion in one "case, or for the defendant in another,
that it was highly necessary it should be so : and
if a long process of argumentation were required
to prove the libel, if it approached the boundary
between fair discussion and libel, large, liberal, full
indulgence (night to be made. Could he say more ?
Would thea`alefendant suggest any thing more..? If,
lie would now suggest aby thing of the kind, soy
language, any indulgence beyond this, fur he had
no counsel, he would press it upon the consideration
of the Jnry now, when he was stating the ancient
impreseriptible right of Englishmen to discuss the
conduct Of Government. Had the defendant fairly
meant -to discuss some public measure, to suggest
some improvement ; or had he abandoned that line,
and gone, without disguise, without argument, to
the publication of a malignant libel? He asked whe-
ther, from beginning to end, there was one point
of argument. The tendency was not to be made
out by inuendos, as it was called ; it was given in
as express terms as the English language could
express it. " Peter-Loo Massacre "—a warmish
title l.—(The Learned Gentleman read the whole
passage.)—He put it, whether there were in the
English language terms to excite angry feeling if
those did not. No invention could supply harder
words. Where was the argument ? where the
discussion ? ‘Vhen they cast their eyes over it,
for. it %voidsl be handed to them by the Chairman,
they could not discover one single argument,
one single line, one single point of discussion ;
but they would find,it a comprehensive, summary,
unmixed publication of abuse. It was a paper
which did not carry on the head of it any discus-
sion ; but a promise of something to be given
sometime afterwards. It contained the expres-
sion, " who were constitutionally assembled to
consider of the hest, most legal, and most effici-
ent means of alleviating their present unparalleled
sufferings." As to his opinion (Mr. Williams's),
it was not worth having ; btu one of the greatest
lawyers in the country—he was placed at the very
Mead of the. law, and they trust, therefore, be-
lieve that he was the greatest lawyer—had said,
that there was not a constitutional lawyer in the
country who could say that the meeting was a
constitutional meeting. Buf the charge was,
that this was a libel to bring into hatred and
contempt the soldiers of the King. To say
of a man that he was a murderer was libel ;
to say that he bad cut and maimed was libel ;
to call him ap infernal, an armed ruffian, was
libel. He repeated that there was no question
here whether it was fair discussion or libel, in
which it fairly belonged to the Jury to say, whe-
ther the one or other was intended. The whole
of that topic had no bearing at all upon this case ;
it was a case of plain, simple, unmixed accusation,
without one single observation to qualify or It t it
down. The sting was in the tide: It'was said
of certain publications, as of certain insects and
reptiles, that the sting was in the tail. So it was
with an epigram. But this publication was full
of sting ; it was a 'porcupine ; there was a sting
in every part. After the title, '' Peter- Loo Mas-
sacre," there were three very appropriate points of
admiration. The defendant, and not the author,
was answerable ; that was, they did not know whe-
ther he or who was the author. The publication
of libel was the offence. As knowledge was not
knowledge till it was revealed,
so libel
was-
not libel
while it remained in the pocket. There wereseveral
indictments against. the defendant's employer, Mr.
\Vroe, which, as they had been removed to an-
other Court, were not putter their consideration.
The object of this prosecution was, as he was in-
structed, to bring tinder their consideration, and
to punishment, those who aided and abetted in
this injurious publication. Although his autho-
rity was not coital to !hat of the Lord Chancellor,
yet lie would with deference say, that selling a
libel was libtllon,, and had been so for a century,
as clearly as taking a watch out of a man's fob
was larceny. The defendant would he proved to
have sold this paper, which did intend and mean
to bring the soldiers into contempt and disgrace.
There was nothing in it in which the subject of
libel or discussion was involved. lie desired
larger bounds for di,=cussion than 'any lawyer or
counsel ever did, and he hoped be never should
survive that day when perfect freedom of disens-
sion should cease ; but here there was nothing but
I unmixed abuse.

John Haweross proved the purchasing of the
paper (Manchester Observer) of the defendant at
Mr. Wroe's, Market-street, Manchester. In an-
swer to a question from the defendant, lie said,
that he had seen ILtn frequently employed behind
the counter.

Mr. HAY.—FIAve von any thing to say in de-
fence or rxtenual ion ?

The Dcfendant.-1 had no intention, as imputed
by the indictment, to bring soldiers into conti'mpt,
or to excite disaffection. 1 euterrd into Mr.'
Wroe's employment for the purpose of obtaining,
as I thought, an honest livelihood, 1 hope the
Gentlemen of the Jury will not find me guilty for-
having endeavoured to obtain an hottest li.ve-
.lihood.

Mr. HAY.--Gentlemen of the Jiiry—Comider-
ing the situation iu which I stand, it tNotiicl be
very iniproPel II me to make any obser cations.---

[PRICE SEVENPENCE.

In many cases it might be necessary, here it is
not, to offer any remarks, for the libel is so clear
that it cannot be mistaken. I have only to say,
according to the power vested in me to give my
opinion, that this is as gross a libel as can be.—
If any one chooses to take on himself to sell what
may be a libel, he is answerable for it.
The Foreman took the paper into his hand, and
turned round to the rest of the Jury: In about
one minute he returned 3. verdict of Guilty. .
When the clerk read the Advertisement on which
the indictment was founded, the defendant (Chork
ton) was asked, whether he wished the whole to
be read. He said, he did not.

WILLIAMS—The Jury will see the whole ;
you have therefore a right to have the rest read
if you wish it.

Defendant—l don't wish any thing respecting it.
It was not read. It is as follows
Edited by an Observer,
" *;,‘• In the course of the work will be given all the public
plae.rds which were issued previous to and after the bloody
tragedy; with, every authentic document that can he pro-
cured, tending to exhibit in their true colours the authors,
abettors, and actors in the drama of death. In order to Ru-
de' this work as complete a record of facts as can be obtained,
the friends of the murdered and wounded people are request-
ed to furnish the Editor, at the Observer-office, with accurate
statements of the nature of the wounds that occasioned
death; and also those which were sustained by the liring:
The Editor will also be thankful for any communication or
newspaper which is calculated to throw light on the late deeds
of darkness ; and with the aid of Ithruiers spear, he trusts he
'shall he able to exhibit the Devils in their true likeness.
" Printed and published by James %VI-oe, Observer-office,
18; Market-street, Manchester: sold by It. Carlile 'ss,Fleet-
street ; T. Davison, 10, Duke street, West SmitAeld ; anti
'l'. Dolby, 34, Wardour-street, Loudon; J. Osborne, Union-
street, Birmingham ; T. Smith, Liverpool; J. Mann, Leeds;
W. Whitworth, Rochdale, and all other Booksillers."
Chorlton, immediately after the verdict, was
conducted by the officers into the felon's dock,
where be stood up expecting judgment.
Joseph Shaw now appeared to pray that his re-
cngnizances should not be estreated.
Mr. WILLIAMS.'-4 oppose it now.
Joseph ShaW.—l was here all the week, and
having got entirely out of subsistence, I won to
Balton last night for subsistence. I walked back
this morning, 13 miles, as fast as I was able. I
could not be here earlier.

Mr. llay.—We can do nothing now. It rest•
with the prosecutor.
Mr. WILLIAms.-1 consent. I only wished to
hear what he had to say. 1 am ready now in his
case.

Joseph Shaw said, that he was Without any re-
freshment, and prayed a little time.
Mr. Williams at once consented, and the pri-
soner left the Court fora short time.

Mr. HA? (to Choriton, who continued to stand
at the bar)—You may stand down, but perhaps
von wish to hear the other trials; it so, you may
remain as you are.