The Sun.
London, England, 1829-12-23 00:00:00

NINTH DA V

Long before twelve o'clock, the time at which it wee
understood that Mr. BROUOHAM was to address the Com-
missioners on behalf 'of the alleged lunatic, the room :n
the Gray's Inn Coffee-house, appropriated to this con:-
miasion, and the stairs leading to it, were crowded to ex-
cess, the utmost anxiety seeming to pervade all to hear
the apecch of the Learned Gentleman. A short time
at'er twelve o'clock the Learned Gentlem in entered the
room, and proceeded to address the Jury as follows :
Gentlemen of the Jury, in rising to discharge the vely
important, though not difficult duty that devolves upon me,
I feel that I have great necessity for your indulgence
soil also that of the Commiasioners, in respect especially of
the vast mass of evidence which has been accumulated by this
almost unprecedented proceeding. How I should hare
been able to get through that mess of evidence consistent
with the discharge of other professional duties, and to have
felt myself in the calamity of performing my duty here, I
know not, hut from the assistance of my hemmed coadju-
tors, to whose experience and skill I feel myself greatly
indebted. Permit me, gentlemen, to say, that you, like
myself, have no very difficult task to perform. Nevertheless,
it is a duty you have to deelsro whether a fellow-citizen
shrill he taken from the management of his own affairs—
shall he deprived Pooh access to every human being, except
the keepers ttf br. Burrows—whether a fellow-citizen
ahoy lee tar:lna unlike a human being, but as one deprived
or nal leabonal nature, and incapable of managing that
littte property that remains to him, after these proceedings
heat: closed, and whether that little property shall be
vested in the hands of others. In commenting upon the
evidenee, Gentlemen, I promise you whatever " stuff or
ncnsense" you may hear from me, you shall hear no such
trash es Mr. Wright was good enough to compliment me
With. Look, Gentlemen, first of all to the immensely
protracted {death of these proceedings; look to the mass
of lithaation both in the Court of Chancery and here;
through which Mr. Davie,. has been dragged—through
whirl, his property has been dragged—look at all these,
aryl I will venture to say, that, all-important to him as is
the result of this inquiry, before these proceedings shall
clitae, I greatly fear that the care and management of his
property is him will Ire comparatively of te ifiing Im-
portance. Gentlemen, I very much doubt whi they the.
fottune—the attiple fortune in Mr. Davies's situation iii
We, r f which he became possessed by his industry and
talent., and extraordinary success in hide—l doubt very
much, Gentlemen, whether any of that will remain
when this inquiry is past and gone. In other
respects this case is without a precedent—l allude
to the manner in which it has been conducted—
and in doing so, / would be understood as speaking with
all tenderness as relates to certain pet sons—with all pos-
sible charity as relates to othero, and with perfect kind-
ness as relates to my Learned Friends. I bring no charge
against them, hut against those front whom they received
instruction. Gentlemen, a Commission of Lou icy, or
rather an inquisition into the state of mind of an alleged
lunatic, differs from all other cases. In other cases there
err two parties—the plaintiff and defendant, who meet
together in open contest—who are adversaries—it may be
enemies. Here gentlemen they are to be the same parties,
at least they ought to be the same parties—animated
by the same spirit—having the same interests
to protect—and the same persons to feel for. Here
there ought to be nn contentious wranglirge to get a vette
diet—no trick of the profeasion as at Nisi Prins to do
so. But the parties originating the proceedings should
fcn On in every step, animated alike with the same feel-
inFe, tool openly showing that they have but the accom-
plishment of the time desire, namely, that of bringing
before, the Jury, who are to try the question, the whole
Pacts and circumstances of which they are possessed. At
Nisi Prins each party wishes to obtain the victory, and
wia,bly so; but here, if the victory is obtained by the
preductien of evidence or the keeping of it hack, the vic-
tory is obtained over the parties themselves. Gentlemen,
I vow most solemnly before you that here, as else-.
where in the like inquiry, if at any one instant
in the progress of the cause, I had felt that the evidence
was such that no reasonable man could think otherwise
than that Mr. Davies was of unsound mind, as his Conn-
ed, entrusted with his interests, I should have felt myself
hound on that instant to have suspended further proceed-
ings—to have saved the wreck of his estate—and to have
flung around him that protection which a proceeding like
the present would give him, even if the other side were to
Abandon the inquiry. I have so felt and acted here, and
in that I have the concurrence of my Learned Ceadjutor,
and I must say that I have never yet, though I have un-
happi'y been employed in one or two (Toes of this nature,
1 have never acted en any other principle. But those
Gentlemen who have instructed my Learned Friends have
inspired them with no such feelings;—they have, I say,
notoriously kept (mei; evidence of the most important nature.
Though I wish tint, gentlemen, to streak harshly of this, I
must remind you of that rematkahle circumstance—the
examination of Mr. Holder, becamee this illustrates their
conduct and ours. Mr. nobler was brought forward in
coosequence of some difficulty in substantiating the giving
of is notice. Mr. Holder voluntarily came forward, foot-
iog that he would produce thst notice without making
himself a witueas. " No," said toy friends, " let Mr.
Holder be sworn." Ile was sworn, gentlemen, and there-
fore made a witness on both sides. By this manner of
proeic. ding of course Mr. (feebler av s to be cross-examined
on the whole mese. This my Learned Friends objected to,
and aeon illy wanted the proceedings to he delayed, in order
to allow time for an application to the Lord Chancellor.—
If the object of my Learned Friends was to put before
you the truth and the whole trutlnif it was not their
'wish to snap a verdict at your hands, why did
they object to Mr. Holder's being examined on the
whole case? And then, the instant they found
they hal got themselves into what they thought
was a scrape, though I lent them my helping hand, and
offered to get them out of the pit into which they had
fallen—though they rejected that with some indignation,
yet they efterwari's pursued that course which I 'rave
already stated to you. They made such a struggle that I
have no doubt the oldest practitioner here or elsewhere
would say was entirely without precedent. This, gentle-
men, I say, proves what they are after;—that it is not
truth, but victory—not the light, but only such light as
may distract and bewilder. They want at all events a
verdict; of fairly, all well—but a verdict they must have
at ail events. That is the object, and the only object,
of the clients of my Learned Friends. The same mode
of proceeding has been adopted in the lesser de-
tails of the case. Sir Charles Wetherell turned into
ridicule some parts of Mr. Davies's conduct, a mode
of proceeding which I am cute his own good sense would
never have permitted him to adopt but for his instructions.
So with Mr. Wright, playing his second part ; but I could
not hut observe that there were at times great departures
from the tenor struck by his learned leader. Gentlemen,
the object you have in view is to discover by the examina-
tion of the parties on both sides, and comparing their dif-
ferent points, whether Mr. Davies, is in such a state as
to be capable of managing his person and his property.
Now, for this purpose, let us just consider first of all what
kind of evidence would have been most satisfactory to your
mind. In leading you through the inquiries, I *ball
shortly describe a variety of circumstances which appear
to have given rise in certain quartets to an apprehension
of an aberration of mind in Mr. Davies, beginning in the
spring of this year. It was true, Mr. Davies was a nerv-
vex man, had been extremely attentive to business, his
education bad been neglected. and he with praiseworthy
zeal had endeavoured to supply those defects. This cause
it was thought, showed some aberrations of mind. Mr•
Davies, was a man of speculative matinee, it is said those
peculiarities have increased, and therefore it was a necessary
consequence that he was insane. Gentlemen, I say it was
absolutely necessary, in order to give you a chance of dis-
covering the real truth of the case, that those should be
examined who knew him best and longest. The question
is not whether there is a peculiarity now in the manner of
Mr. Davies, but whether that peculiarity, which is said
now to exist, existed before: and who would be so able to
speak .of that as those who had long known him. Mr.
Davies has been surrounded by clerks in his employ, to
the number of 17 or IS, who have seen all his operations
in trade, and been acquainted with his every action ; yet toy
Learned Friends have not called one of them; those who
have been called were entirely ignorant of every circum-
stance attending the case of Mr. Davies: the Counsel, I
say, purposely selected all those who knew him not, and
have purposely kept back all those who knew him. They
have called those who are— I won't say unfriendly towards
Mr. D ivies—but those who could not have the slightest
means of throwing any light upon this subject. Now,
Gentlemen, who are the witnesses they have called—
you have Mr. Varney, whose evidence, I thinl , goes for
little or nothing.
(Mr. Brougham was proceeding to comment at great
length on the evidence adduced in support of the C01411111E..
sion, when we left.)

GOOD TRADE.--Notwithstanding the dull-
ness of the past semen, the number of passengers between
Dundee, Newburgh, and Perth, by the Hero steam
packet, has been ascertained to be about 28,000, since
blue commenced plying in the spring; besides numberlews
crouds betwixt Dundee and Broughty Ferry...., an.

EX-OFFICIO INFORMATION.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH—THIS DAY.
At the sitting of the Court this morning there was no
:Tom], and but few persons of distinction present.
THE KING v. JOHN FISHER, ROBERT ALEX.
ANDER, AND JOHN MATTHEW GUTCH.
The cause being called on, the following Special Jury-
:nen were called end sworn :
John Win. Sutherland, Esq.
James Peter Undrey, merchant.
Alfred Batson, merchant.
George Goodwin, Esq.
James Brown, merchant.
Richard Hillhouse, merchant.
Thomas Malign Sherwood, Esq.
William M. Brown, Esq. merchant.
Robert Joseph Chambers, Esq.
Mr. Chambers applied to be excused, on the ground of
his being a Magi-trate ; but
Lord TENTERDEN said that he was not exempt by the
Act, and he was obliged to serve.
No more Special Jurymen being present, the following
Common Jurymen were added.
George Smith.
Thomas Watson ; and
Henry Smith, of Dartmouth-street.
The Counsel for the prosecution were Mr. ATTORNEY.
GENERAL, Mr. SOLICITOR-GENERAL, Mr. GURNEY,
Mr. BROUGHAM, and Mr. WIGHTMAN.
Mr. Ponaocx and Mr. HILL appeared for Mr. Gutch,
and Mr. BARSTOW for Mr. Fisher ; and the defendant
Mr. Alexander, defended himself in person.
Mr. WIGHTMAN opened the pleadings by stating that
this was a prosecution against John Fisher, Robert Alex-
ander, and John Matthew Gutch, for publishing an in-
flammatory libel, calculated to bring his Majesty's Govern.
ment into contempt, in a newspaper entitled the Morning
Journal, on the 14th of May last.
All the defendants had pleaded "Not Guilty."
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL rose and said. May it
please your Lordship, and Gentlemen of the Jury, it is my
duty very shortly to bring before you that libel which is
characterized by the introduction which my Learned
Friend has stated to you as contained in the declaration:
The,defendants are the Proprietors, and I believe one of
them, Editor of the Morning Journal. The publication
in pais ion took place on the 14th May, I think of the
present year, and the charge contained in this information
is, that the object of the libel which I shall produce to
your notice was to degrade his Meje-ty, and bring him
into contempt, because it was believed he had submitted
to indignities unworthy his Sovereignty and his person.
Gentlemen, I need not state to you how important it is
that in all public discussions, whether by writing or speech,
that the person and dignity of the Sovereign should be
heated with due respect. I have been educated in a prin-
ciple which I trust will never abandon me, that the Sovereign
is entitled always to reverence ; that attachment to his per-
son—reverence for his dignity, form a part of that sub-
stantial loyalty which every good subject oueht to feel.
Whatever therefore may be the nature of the discussion,
however it may agitate the angry feelings of men, it has
a'ways been deemed incumbent on every individual, whe-
ther he ranks in such a discussion or not, to treat the sub-
ject of the Sovereign with decorum ; and you will have
to judge when you hear this libel, whether it has observed
that respect or not. Ira the early period of the present
year, at the first meeting of Parliament, to a certain ex-
tent the public mind was considerably agitated by a very
important subject, introduced by his Majesty to Parliament.
I am perfectly indifferent, Gentlemen, what your senti-
ments may be on that subject. lam aware whatever your
opinion may be, whether you are of opinion that that great
question which agitated these kingdoms ought not to have
been settled as it has been, or that it ought to have re-
mained the constant source of discord and contention,
that nevertheless you will agree with me when that ques-
tion had been settled, when the voice of Parliament, by
the recommendation of his Majesty, and the subsequent
ratification of that decision by his Majesty himself, had
disposed of the question, surely the time had then ar-
rived when the discussion should cease—when it became
the duty of every man, who desired to inculcate respect
for the laws of his country, to attend to that—to abstain
from personal attack, and from those remarks calculated
to bring any part of the legislature, and more espe-
cially that most sacred part, the Sovereign and his
power, into disgrace and contempt. Gentlemen, the print in
question, chiefly conducted by one of the defendants, appears
to have espoused a very sanguine notion during these dis-
cussions that the measure was impolitic and could not
pass. I presume the person who conducted that print
was totally ignorant of the secret springs of which he sup-
posed he was possessed ; that he wished only to inform his
readers that he knew more than he really did possess;
and when he found finally that his Majesty hail given his
assent to that important measure, instead of retracting
those assertions, or, if that should have been dis-
agreeable, of observing a respectful silence, he thought
fit to continue in that state of hostility arid personal
attack in which he had for seine time indulged.
Gentlemen, during the period when the Catholic
question was before Parliament, a full licence was
given to the discussion by the public prints ; and I may
state that no steps were taken against the public prints at
that time for come of the most violent attacks ever
spoken, made against the prison bringing forward the
ineasure. When, however, all should have been peace,
what will you think of the writer of this publica-
tion, who undertakes to state that his Majesty was act-
ing solely under the authority of others, was under restraint,
and subject to an influence unworthy of any Sovei eign—
inconsistent with his dignity anti affecting his personal
honour? Gentlemen, it becomes the Sovereign of this
great country at all times to have the free exercise of his
own will, and in none does the Constitution respect that
Sovereign freedom mote than in the choice of its Mlni-
eters ; and I believe I may say there never was a Monarch
who filled the throne of this kingdom le-s disposed to
submit to improper interference, or less wanting in per-
sonal credit and firmness, than the Sovereign who now
wears the Crown. Now, by the publication which this
gentleman has thought fit to send forth under an affecta-
tion of pity, which is insulting, addressed from such a
quarter to such a quarter, and an affectation of compas-
sion, be chooses to represent the King of England,
as a person destitute of a will of his own, enthralled,
subject to fetters and restraint, not daring to show
himself in public, having become unpopular, and so
bound down by the controul of an imperious Minister as
neither to have a capacity yr voice of his own. Is that
fit respect to observe towards a Sovereign ? Is that treat-
ing with due decorum the Monarch of these realms? If
the defendant should say to-day, there have been many
other publications worthy of prosecution which have been
passed by, I shall not enter into controversy with him on
that point ; it was my painful duty to select for prosecu-
tion, and lam sorry to say it, some licentious part of that
unlimited audacity with which some part of the Press has
been lately conducted, and I thought it my duty to select a
part that had some attack on the person of the Severeign,
and I hare got it here. Gentlemen, have the goodness to
attend to this, which I shall now read to you, and then you
will be able to say whether the representation of the sta-
tion here represented is one that is consistent with the high
honour of the Sovereign of this realm :
" We have the best reasons for stating that his Majesty
.has lately evinced something more than marked coolness
towards his Grace the Duke of Wellington, the cause of
this is known ; but as atones have ears, we shall to a cer-
tain extent he silent for the present.
" His Majesty, it is said, complains bitterly that his
Ministers have placed him in such a position, that he can-
not enjoy the pleasure of exhibiting himself to his people.
George the Fourth was till nuw a popular Monarch.
That he has been rendered otherwise is the act of his im-
perious Minister. We deeply lament the occurrence, but
public feeling is an ever-moving tide that is affected by
causes which, although invisible, often lead to disastrous
re-ults. We pity our aged and revered Sovereign."
That's very obliging. A writer of a Newspaper to point
nut his Sovereign as an object of pity, is certainly most in-
dulgent !
" But there are sorrows which are too poignant to be re-
lieved by the secret tear ; they must be rendered torpid by
other appliances."
Now, this is a part of the paragraph which I really do
not understand. It is far beyond my comprehemion : but
what 1 particularly cad your attention to, is the audacity of
a man who dares to represent his Sovereign as a subject of
pity to his people.
"It is sufficiently obvious that there never was a more
ambitious or dangerous Minister in England than the
Duke of Wellington ; but if his ascendancy over the Mo-
narch be such as is represented—or rather, such as it is
represented to have been, then we are sure that national
sympathy must spontaneously flow towards the King.
The people must feel intensely the restraints imposed upon
the Sovereign, and regret that, owe: flowing with goodness
as he is; kind to excess ; fondly attached to his subjects,
and paternally anxious to see them all prosperous and
happy, he cannot mingle with their public entertainments,
or receive those congratulations which must be gratifying
to his Majesty, in the wane of existence. But his Ma-
jesty may yet hare strength and intrepidity to burst his
letters ; dismiss - from before his throne evil councillors,

and assume that station in public opinion which befits a
popular Monarch."
So that the King is described new as an object of pity
and commiseration by the editor of a newspaper; as one
who was once Fopular, but who dares not now shcw him-
. self to his subjects, and as one who may again occupy a
station—which of course it is inferred, he has abandoned--
that may fit a popular monarch ; implying that the sta-
tion he now occupies is one that does not befit a popular
monarch. Now the meaning of this is no more than to
insinuate that in the great measure to which I have re-
ferred, his Majesty acted without will, that he acted under
restraint, and that he exposed himself to the ignominious
empire over his will and authority which would be utterly
disgraceful to any one. In what way the gentleman got
his knowledge, I think it not fit to stay to enquire. This
I know, that the fact is as false as the insinuation is
impertinent, and that the statement is as degrad-
ing to the monarch as any libel I have known
in modern times publishes against the Sovereign autho-
rity. And what is the object of this? What is the
object of it, Gentlemen ? if the writer intended to at-
tack an administration, were there no other means of
doing it, than endeavouring to wound it through the
sides of the King? Is it impossible to write down a
Ministry, if that be the object of the Press, without de-
grading the Monarch ? Is it not a degradation to repre-
sent him as an object of pity ? and to state as the ground
of that pity, that his fetters are imposed on him by his
Ministers, that his will has been enthralled, and that he
has been obliged to submit to acts that make him so un•
popular that he dare not show himself? How comes this
writer to be acquainted with the voice of the people of Eng-
land ? How does he know better than the two Houses of
Parliament what it is right for the Legislature to do ? We
have bad a specimen lately of what this supposed know-
ledge is worth, shown upon a trial a few days since, re-
specting an effort made against the alleged falling of the
Ministry, which ended in a paltry procession, consisting of
a hackney-coach and four horses sent to Windsor.—(A
laugh. )—llis Majesty dares not show himself ! Is not
that sufficient ? If it be intended to degrade the Monarch,
what has the Sovereign done? What does the writer in-
sinuate he has done which has rendered him incapable of
showing himself to his people? Gentleit:en, I submit to
you that to tolerate such a libel is to give a licence to
any writer, who, funny as he may be, and destitute
of talent as he may be, may, nevertheless, be
capable of holding the higheA offices and persons of the
greatest dignity up to contempt, and place them in the
same state of degradation as himself. Gentlemen, it is
unnecessary to dwell longer on this. I believe no person,
who has ever advocated the liberty of the press to its fullest
extent, has ever dared to say it should be carried to the
extent of a personal insult on the Sovereign. And I trust
I shall never address a jury who shall not correspond with
the sentiment I entertain, that when a man is brought be-
fore them, charged with an offence of this sort, that they
must feel as I do, that he is a fit subject for prosecution and
punishment.

Mr. Raven was called by the Solicitor-General ; and
produced the affidavit, proving the proprietorship of the
Paper, and who also produced a number of the Morning
Journal, of the 14th of May, containing the alleged libel.
Letters Patent, appointing his Grace the Duke of Wel-
lington First Lord of the Treasury, dated Jan. 26, 1828,
were put in and reed.
The Hon. Mr. Greville called and examined by Mr.
Greville, you are one of the principal
clerks in his Majesty's Privy Council ?—Yes.
Before and on the 14th of May last was his Grace the
Duke of Wellington one of his Majesty's Privy Council?
—Yes.
Lord TENTERDEN—I doubt whether this is evidence of
the Duke of Wellington's being in the Ministry.
Mr. GURNEY—But it is described so in the libel my
Lord.

Lard TENTERDEN—Oh, that i 9 another thing.
Mr. GURNEY—Mr. Greville, was his Grace at that
time at the Privy Council as one of his Majesty's Ministry ?
—I know that he was there as one of the Privy Council,
and I suppose that he was one of the Ministry.
This was the case for the prosecution.

Mr. PottocE—May it please your Lordship and
Gentlemen of the Jury, I appear to-day before you as the
Counsel for Mr. Gutch, and Mr. Gutch only. I appeared
for him alone yesterday, and after the attention and indul-
gence with which I was honoured yesterday by his Lord-
ship and the Jury I do not intend occupying your time for
any length of time to day. Whether the rublication be or
he not a libel, and which it will be your province to de-
termine by and by, when you have heard the whole case,
I say that in that question Mr. Gutch professes, to have
nothing to do. I neither admit it nor deny it. I did not
yesterday admit it. Mr. Gutch has nothing to do with
it one way or the other. It would not be becoming in
Mr. Gutch to prejudice the case of any other party before
you. But, admitting it to be a libel, which it is, however,
the duty of the Learned Gentlemen on the other side to
prove, I support Mr. Gutch because the circumstances
which I shall have the honour to lay before you will
prone, beyond contradiction, that Mr. Gutch was nut
the writer, nor the editor of the Paper ; that he was in
fact only proprietor of the Paper, but in the editorial part
he did not intei fere. Ha certainly supplied funds, but as
to the libel Mr. Gutch, personally or morally, has
nothing o❑ earth to do. He did not knave it at the
time it was published. He never afterwards gave as-
sent to it; his defence is that a partner in a news-
paper, as well as all partners in all other concerns,
is responsible for his own, and not his partner's acts. I
entered into cases yesterday, Gentlemen, which I thought
necessary, with which however I shall not trouble you to-
day, but which I shall present to the Court on another
occasion, when it may be necessary to call the defendant,
Mr. Gutch before it.

Lord TENTERDEN—YOU will have a right to move—
you will have the benefit of the same evidence to-day as
yesterday, if Mr. Attorney-Gcneral has no objection.
This was understood to be assented to.

Mr. POLLOCK, I shall occupy the Court bat a few mo••
ments longer. But I think it necessary to make some ob-
servations upon a hypothetical case which my Learned
Friend the Attorney-General yesterday laid before the
Jury, in a similar case to the present against the same de-
fendant. lie supposed that two persona were to join,
one, to find capital for the purpose of providing guns,
pistols, swords, and powder, for the purpose of pursu-
ing that sort of labour on the highway which
would be productive to the firm, in fact for stopping pas-
sengers and robbing them. And my Learned Friend
seemed to contend that the partner of a newspaper, where
it was necessary to have men of reputation and talent, was
in some measure analogous to the partnership which he
supposed to exist. But would the Jury entertain such an
opinion? Would they suppose that the proprietors and
editors of a newspaper partnership were on a par with one
which furnished materials for robbery? I have no hesi-
tation in stating, Gentlemen, that the case he mentioned,
is bottomed on what I shall call the fallacy of the present
actions. It could not be denied that persons of great
talent and respectability were engaged in conducting public
newspapers; but it was also well known that the press
was an object of a suspicious jealousy, and I will add,
groundless fear. With regard to the points of law which
I intended to sustain by the cases which I cited yesterday,
it seems that that has ceased to be law, that it was put
down by an Act intrcduced by Mr. Pox, but rain sup-
ported in the declaration that it was that which all the
Judges in the land at the time pronounced to be law. It
seems, however, not to be law now. It may be said, that
the person who leaves in the possession of his partner
materials for printing and publishing libels, is a fit object
for criminal prosecutions, if libels are published. Nothing
can be more fallacious. If a servant is left in possession
of dangerous weapons, which can only be used for de-
struction, his master is not answerable for any act of de-
struction which he may occasion. Nay, more—if the
master were wicked enough to put into his hands weapons
for the purpose of destroying John Nokes, yet if the ser-
vant bad a particular enmity against Tom Styles, the
master would not be answerable, even though aware of
the fact, and that he bad furnished the servant with arms
for the purpose of death. But such is not the purpose of
the Editor and Proprietor of a Newspaper. It must be
recollected that the object of a newspaper is to make ob-
servations on passing occurrences, and to give the news of
the day. And the Jury are not warranted in considering
that their object is prima facie to issue libellous
and scandalous articles upon public characters. They
must not consider that the freedom of the Press itself is
dangerous, because it will be used sometimes for those
purposes. That is, I think, a mistake not founded in
principle. Ido not intend to urge to.day, Gentlemen,
other than what is considered law by his Lordship. I
shall therefore not refer to the topics which I argued yes-
terday, but I feel it due to myself to state that I then
mentioned what I thought was justified by the result of my
own opinions and labour, and I was not less so in stating
yesterday the arguments of Counsel, than I am honestly
stating to day my opinion as a man. I had only at-
tempted to state yesterday my opinion, that in the ab-
sence of moral crime, a man ought not to be
amen ible to punishment. I had also shown that
Mr. Gutch had no more to do with this libel,

I call it a libel because it is so called on the other side; it
will be, however, for you to judge whether it be a libel or
not—than any other person. But I shall show by-and •
bye, when he shall be brought up for judgment, if it may

be thought necessary for him to be brought up, what may
be an important question to the Court and to the public,
whether nr not the proprietors of Newspapers are liable
whether they interfere or unt. I trust, however, that my
Learned Friend will not think it necessary to call up Mr.
Gutch. I shall then shear that lit; then e=ndeavoured to
get rid of the shares which he had in the Paper in ques-
tion before the libel was published, which act, my Learned
Friend and every body must know, may be tr.et with im-
mense difficulty, and cannot be perffirmed in a moment.
I shall not, Gentlemen, press further on ynnr attention, but
reserve what I have to say for the occasion to which I have
alhtdied.

Mr. BARSTOW—My Lord, I appear for Mr. Fisher, in
his character as printer and publisher of the newspaper in
question ; and I beg respectfully to submit his case to the
Court, knowing that the course which is most proper is
sure, in the end, to meet with the most beneficial result.
I shall not therefore address the jury—l shall merely re-
quest that his Lordship will take a note of that fact.
Mr. Alexander—May it please your Lordship and Gentle-
men of the Jury, I appear alone in a case of great hardship.
The Learned Gent. in his defence for his client, Mr. Gutch,
attempts to show that my late partner, Mr. Gutch, had
no concern with the libel. In my opinion, which I give
with treat deference, I think that he would have done
his client more justice had he been wholly silent. His
Lordship will, however, tell you that my late partner, as
far as this article is concerned, is as liable as myself. By
this article, writt n on the 14th May, we must stand or
fall together. I shall bring under your consideration the

merits of this case, and it will be necessary that I should
notice historically certain occurrences which gave rise to
this case. These prosecutions, as the Attorney-General—
that Learned Gentleman—with his usual candour has told
you, arose out of the discussions on the Catholic question.
I admit that they did. I have no desire to consult at pre-
sent the merits of that question which was discussed upon
a late occcasion, which, whether it shall prove beneficial
or otherwise, whether it shall allay the contending passions
of opposing parties, is to be determined hereafter. When
th.t Biil was introduced into Parliament, and introduced
in so extraordinary a manner, without principle, without
consistency, and without honour, the country was in the
greatest agitation, and when every subject who could before
repose on the repeatedly avowed principles of those wl:o•e
honour before was never questioned, it was no wonder
that the public mind should be excited, that the men
placed in situations which they happened to be in, could
ever have acted with inconsistency ; I was bound by my
private principles, and by every principle of justice
and . discretion to make some observations on those
events; I thought it my duty to speak plainly upon
that important subject ; whether I did so in a man-
ner beyond the limits of fair discussion, is a question
which you are this day called on to decide; whether
in the moments of excitation we may he clothed with the
privilege of using a warmth of expression, which at other
seasons would not be commonly indulged in. Men are
called on, on such occasions, to express their opinions, riot '
calmly but warmly. Out of those discussions arose this
article of the 14th May. I said yesterday to the Court,
as I tell you now, that the first motion made in the last
term, on the first day on which the Attorney-General en-
tered his office, that this was the first of a series of prose-
' cutions, the object of which was to put down the free
Press of this country. What was shown yesterday in the
result of that case almost rendered it unnecessary that I
should have predicted it. I have told you what took place
on the discussion of that question. I was waited on by a
Noble Friend intimately connected with his Majesty's
Administration, who told me my observations on the non
who conducted that Bill, and on the principles on which
it was conducted, at a time when, from the circum-
stances of Sir C. Wetherell's resignation, and the conduct
of other persons who were never suspected of inconsistency,
the country was excited in a most unusual degree, my
Noble Friend told me that 1 was to take warning. Take
warning (said be to me, in a grave tone), for if you make
one false step, so deeply have the observations which you
have made upon those men entered into their hearts, that
they would endeavour to punish you, by every means, for
the reflections you have made. I said yesterday, and I
repeat it to-day, that I de not think it possible that any
one man in the country, who has reached the rank
of Minister of the Crown—that any one indi-
vidual would have been actuated by such cowardly,
dastardly, and malicious actions. Little, however, did 1
think that on the first day of term, on the first appearance
of the Attorney-General in his official capacity, that most
liberal gentleman, of the most liberal Government, who,
in his own estimation, is a most acute lawyer, akd
the most liberal and candid orator that ever carne
into a Court, who addresses the Jury with such smiling
familiarity, with all the familiarity and confidence of an
old friend, he tells you, Gentlemen, that you must do this,
dist you must do that, with all the confidence and fami-

liarity that he would use if he were addressing a parcel of
children, and directing them how to divide a basket of
gooseberries—that liberal-minded gentleman, who will
lay down to you exactly what you must do in this case,
as confidently as if he never intended you to have any
opinion of your own, that by this Attorney-General, by
that Government, I should have been brought before this
Court. When the criminal information was filed by the
Lord Chancellor against me, and after I had denied that
the inuendoes related to him most conscientiously, this
liberal-minded gent!eman proceeded against me !:1- ex-officio.
That was for the libel tried yesterday. I. think this is
the seventh of the series of prosecutions, the object
of which is to restrain the freedom of the Press,
by distressing an humble individual, by ruining me in
character and fortune, and which perhaps may put me in
a situation which may speedily end my life. You have it
in your power to decide whether or not the article in
question mead, appears to you to be a libel, having a tend-
ency to bring the Government into contempt, in having a
tendency to bring his Majesty into contempt; I defy the
Attorney-General, from the time when I first knew how to
distinguis t my r'ght hand from my left, to let ret out any
charge which could impute to me the least disloyalty to the
King. I will maintain that lam a more loyal man than the
King's Attorney-General, and it is preposterous to charge
me with endeavouring to bring the Government of the
country into contempt. Such a charge, Gentlemen, you
will never for one moment entertain. I wish every one
of you had the Morning Journal of the last six months
in your possession ; you would then see on what ground
charges of disloyalty and contempt were founded, you
would then ascertain what tendency my writings had to
degrade the King, or bring the Government of the country
into contempt. It is now six months since the article for
which I appear on the floor of this Court, was written,
and when it is for you, after that period has elapsed, to
say, has it had such an effect, for that is the real question
at issue. If you are of opinion that it has not had that
effect, you are bound to acquit me, for I never can be
found guilty of writing an article, the tendency of which
has never been realized. On the face of the article itself,
there appears the best spirit and the most dutiful obedience
towards his Alajesty, and the remarks on the Duke of
Wellington are freely within the bounds of fair discretion.
Gentlemen, I will read you a few observations on the
liberty of the Press, from one of the letters of
Junius, you will then see the opinion of that
eminent writer. He states that considerable latitude
must be allowed in the discussion of political affairs, or
otherwise the liberty of the press is altogether done away
with, and then you would do away with one of the greatest
national blessings. If at the time of Junius the public
press was thought so great an advantage, and the discus-
sion of public affairs of so much importance, was it not
equally so now—that was just before the breaking out of
the American war, and at a time when the Ministry were
placed in great difficulties, yet even in those trouble-
scone times they never instituted a proceeding like the
one against me. And this prosecution is instituted at
a time when we are not threatened with any invasion—
we have no rebellion in the King's dominions—a fifteen
years' permanent peace--the Revenue flourishing—lreland
pacified—Spitalfield weavers satisfied with their wages—
and not even the sound of discontent to be heard in the
country. Is it not, therefore, gentlemen, strange
that the Duke of Wellington should have fixed on such a

time to prosecute me for-calling him a dangerous man. In
the year 1610, Mr. Perry, of the Morning Chronicle, was
charged with much a similar libel, tending to degrade his
Majesty in the eyes of his people ; that alleged libel stated
that until his present Majesty (George the Third) was in
his grave there would he no chance of any improvement
in the condition of the country. On that trial, Lord
Ellenborough held that the defendant had a right to say
so, for his evident intention was to show that a change of
Ministry would, in his opinion, benefit the country, and
did not intend by a change of system to excite any degree of
disloyalty, and continued his Lordship, there may be error
in the present system, for I only know of one Being who
is not liable to err. The result of this trial was, the
honourable acquittal of Mr. Perry without the Jury re-
tiringlno urafrb!em the box. With respect to the expressions
n o
to his Majesty, there is not one but
what euse
is couchedof
language of the greatest reverence; I
relatingin
therefore, on that point, will not detain you long, particularly
after the case of Mr. Perry, which I have drawn your
attention to. I have always spoke of his ]Majesty with
the most profound respect. The Attorney- General rests
much upon my audacious assurance to pity the King. If
pity is a libel, Gentlemen, then I am guilty. If yon should
day by your verdict that such language is a libel, I will pe-

tition Parliament for a censor over the public NM; we
should then have more liberty than we now enjoy; or I should
like to see a Board of Controul established, with Mr. Gur-
ney at its head, a pair of scissars in his hand, and i nstruc-
tions to cut out every paragraph in the public papers relat-
ing to his Majesty's Ministers; we should then have better
protection than we have at present. Call it an offennce, in-
deed, to pity his Majesty—is not the very idea mon-
strous? The Attorney-General does not take notice of
the passage in the libel, which states there is a
marked coolness between his Majesty and the Duke of
Wellington. If I were to prove every word of the state-
ment true, still the Attorney-General would say that was
no excure. I do, gentlemen, say, that it is true that his
Majesty cannot enjoy the pleasure in the company of his
Ministers ; and is that a libel on the Crown, when I say,
that it is not his Majesty's own acts, hut arising out of the
acts of his Ministers. Shortly after the passing of the Ca-
tholic Relief Bill, a gentleman called upon me and said his
Majesty was desirous of visiting Covent-garden and Drury-
lane Theatres, and requested to know whether I thought
there would be any strong expression of public opinion
if he did. My advice was, such was the excitation of
public feeling, that I would advise him not. This advice,
Gentlemen, was acted open, and the King did not go._
(A laugh.) Since the passing of the Catholic Relief Bill,
his Majesty has not visited any 'I beatre.—( Great laugh-
ter, in which the Attorney-General heart ly joined.)—
Mr. A. continued :—The Attorney-General laughs; he
and his party, no doubt, tb;nk that they have obtained a
triumph ; let them enjoy their laugh. The next paragraph
of the alleged libel refers to the Duke of Wellington.—
' What is there stated arose entirely out of the dis-
cussions on the Catholic question, and the strong ex-
citation which those discussions engendered. To show
the Jury his impression of the Duke of Wellington pre-
vious to that time, I will read the address in the Morning
Journal on the 6th of Octokr, 1828, the day on which
it first made its appearance under that title. I there ex-
press, d the confidence I entertained is the Noble Duke at
the head Of the Administration, and that I had no doubt
he would use his best endeavours to extricate the country
from the difficulties with which it was then labouring. I
did then think that such would be the case, but now I
say. Gentlemen, that a more dangerous Minister than the
Duke of Wellington never existed ; but in saying this I cast no
reflection on his Majesty, and who is the Duke of Wel-
lington ? He is not yet King of this country—although he

is Prime Minister lie is still a subject, and more, he is a
servant of the public, and every man in this country has
a right to speak of him in that capacity i❑ what way he
pleases. lie is only culpable uniess he enters his house
and exposes his private and domestic affairs. If I had
done what other J •urnals had done with impunity, ex.
posed the private affairs, and attacked the private charac-
ter of individuals,then inched might I with justice have been

brouaht into this Court. But, Gentlemen, I never in the
whole course of my life, wrote a single word reflecting on
private character. My observations have always been
directed against public men, and as a subject of this
country, I claim that right. 1 am charged with calling
the Duke of Wellington an ambitious man, and if I said he
was not, who would believe me, is not ambition
most laudable; if the Duke of Wellington had not

been ambitioug, woul.l he ever have conquered at Water-

loo—if he had not been ambitious would he ever have been
Prime Minister of England ? I am one of those who
give him the greatest credit for this noble principle; with-
out it he never would have raised himself to his present
dxalted rank. If by your verdict, this day, you say that
it is a libel for calling a Minister of the Crown a danger-
.

ous character—if you establish such a precendent,-the
liberty of the Press is gone for ever. It is on your deci-
sion this day that the rights and liberty of the subject must
stun' or fall. I again, however, fearlessly say, that every
man in this country has a right to use the term in refe-
rence to a Minister of the Crown. Gentlemen, the libel
bas been put into your hands, and it is for you to say
whether it exceeds the bounds of fair and liberal discus-
sion. I pray you to consider the effect of a verdict of
guilty as it regards me. if you say that this article is
libellous, no man in future can sit down to write in safety,
you will for ever put down free discussion ; and unless a
Bill should pass the Legislature, to protect the Press,
no man in future could speak of the Government of the
country only in the language of a slave. This prosecution
is instituted to crush the humble individual who now ap-
pears before you. Gentlemen, give this alleged libel your
cool and dispassionate consideration, and then say whether
or not I have written any thing inconsistent of my character
as a subject of the King, or any thing calculated to bring the
Government of the country into contempt. Remember,
Gentlemen, this is a most serious charge as it relates to
myself, it may be a subject of mirth to the King's Mini•
titers, and a matter of no consequence to the Duke of Wel-
lington, whether lam convicted or not. Let the result be
what it may, it will raise him no new friends, or create a
single observation in his favour. On the other hand, if
you find me guilty, you destroy my character—you take
away my liberty, and deprive me of my livelihood. With
these observations, Gentlemen, I leave my case in your
hands, humbly submitting that the publication complained
of is no libel.

The ATTORNEY-GENENAL rose to reply, in so low a
tone that it was some time before we could h, ar the tenor
of the Learned Counsel's argument. Before he proceeded
to comment upon the topics of the def.ndant, who had
just addressed the Jury, he would just take the liberty of
first stating his opinion respecting the liberty of the Press.
He never did say that he was an enemy to the liberty of
the Press, but had always contended that that liberty was
best secured by having a correcting power placed over it;
if, ins'ead of having ignorant men to conduct it, as was
sometimes the case, it was to be conducted by en-
lightened, honourable, and talented persons, the Press of
this country would indeed become an invaluable blessing,
But when, as was sometimes the case, it indulged in
ribaldry and abuse for the sake of profit—if in such cases
there was no corrective, the people of England indeed
would have cause to regret that there was such a thing as
a free Press. He would now iirocetd to the topics of Mr.
Alexander's defence. He tells you, that unkss you believe
the charge imputed to him of a tendency to bring the Go-
vernment of the country into contempt you are bound to
acquit him. I think, however, his logic is as bad as his
law. Suppose a man was tried for an attempt to murder,
was he to go unpunished because he did not succeed
in his murderous design? He also tells you he is
one of the most loyal subjects. This was the way in
which persons who had seditious motives in view generally
began to talk. No man dare openly declare such designs.
He condemns the measure of his Majesty's Ministers, but
be dare not call the King a traitor. It was a very amus-
ing tale, Gentlemen, that this Privy Counsellor told us
respecting his Majesty's sending to ask his advice whether
or net he should visit Covent-garden or Drury-lane
Theatres. Can you believe such a sts.tcinent ; before I can
I must have better evidence than the oath of Mr. Alexander.
His Majesty, forsooth, to which the advice of a poor
newspaper writer, imported from another country, and
from a place no one knew where. His Majesty, Gentle-
men, neglecting the advice of all his sage Counsellors for
that of Mr. Alexander's. " 0 tempera, 0 mores." Oh
dear, what will the Press of this free country come to.
Who can believe the incredible tale. I have, Gentlemen,
spoken of tl e Duke of Wellington as a public man, and
I have a right to speak of him in this place as a public
man, and Ido not go to his private character. Ido not
know whether Mr. Alexander thinks—but perhaps he
doee—that if he has a servant, he has a right to
cuff about and ill use that servant just as he pleases; and
perhaps he also thinks that when a man becomes a public
character, being a public servant, he has a right
to cuff him, to kick him, and to abuse hint just as he
pleases also. Bus if he does I think he will find himself
mistaken. Gentlemen, you will p,:rtnit me to refer again
to the \voids of the libel itself.—(The Attorney-General
referre,4 again to the terms of the libel.)—Gentlemen, I
am much inclined to doubt another part of wkat
this gentleman states ; he says he was informed by a
Noble Friend of his, closely connected with his Majesty's
Minister 4, that if Sir C. Wetherell had continued Attorney
General, lie would not have been prosecuted for the part he
took on ti e Boman Catholic side of the question. I
should like to know who that Noble Friend was. I should

like to know, whether he would be disposed in this place
—on the trial of this libel—to come forward and say that
he would condescend, being closely connected with the af-
fairs of his Majesty's Ministers, to tell him what he was
to do or expect. He has alluded also to the case of Mr.
Perry, who successfully defended himself against a libel.
Now, it appeared. that that was a misapprehension of the
expressions used in the Newspapers. When Mr. Perry
appeared in Court, he clearly showed that it. could not
refer to any one person, there was no bad
.temper—no
chicanery and no malice proved to exist there. Now, it
you find that this is the same, that the expressions used
here are no degradation of honour—if you think it decent
language—if you think it decent and reverend to use to a
Sovereign—you may, of course, acquit Mr. Alexander.—
But if you think, as I trust you will, that any attempt of
this sort to impose on the King a measure without his will
—to have is understood that he cannot show his face to
his subjects, and, therefore, ti at he it an of of
pity—if you think that a degradation, and disgraceful
to represent his )ilaje.ty to be in, I trust you will think
that such language &serves reprobation, that you will
treat it as such, and mark the writer as having justly sub-
tle speaks of the number dia-
lectal himself to punishment.

formations filed against him, should he glad tnknonfr
they the number bears any proportion to the libels bn...";
published. When he complained of this, he ought totii
told us how many libels he had been guilty of. 1 two,
I might state that the prosecutions are not equal t 0 •
tenth—one fifteenth—or one hundredth, and because
select three, four, or five to bring before
that sufficient to authorise him to complain of sr"
an object of public prosecution ? Is it not rstlei
a ground for showing that he conducted this paper Id
a manner, as that by the constant repetition of his I t
it became a question, whether Mr. Alexander Wet t
wield the powers of Government. or whether that deti
was to devolve upon his Majesty's Ministers ? If this es.
tleman can publish a libel on the King, then a libel oe
Majesty's Ministers, another upon the House of Lords, anntb;
upon the House of Commons, and then a libel upon ~
whole Administration, then to re-publish those libe
stating the grounds of his charges,
has he a right to sewhen the prosecutor overtakes him, that he is an object °
public persecution? Gentlemen, these observations,
am sure, can have no influence upon your minds. lb
question you will consider will be—is this language re
spectful and decent to use of our Sovereign ? If you cr
of opinion it is not, as I trust you will be, you will Pro
pounce that by your verdict; if you thiuk it is such 121
guage as might have been used—such language ash 1
would have used, and as you would have encouraged si,:
body in using, then you will give your verdict for e'R
Alexander.
Lord TENTERDEN then summed up. The defendant
having all pleaded not guilty, it became necessary for ti!,'
Crown to show the connection that all of them had Wi
this publication. For that purpose the same evidence We
offered to-day that was adduced yesterday, and which
the usual evidence that has been given on such occasion°
since the passing of the Act of Parliament that required°
affidavit to be lodged in the Stamp-office to the eff"
you have heard read. Sa;me of the defendants WI
stated that though they are proprietors of this newspaPcl
yet that they were not the authors of this publication ;
the same time very properly admitted by their Counsel tbs
they were answerable for whatever appeared in the Papal
The first question is, what was the object of the
publication? The second question which was raised i
not a legitimate question—what has been the consequence
of that publication ; because, if the object was to defame,
it is not necessary to inquire whether any mischief has beer.
done or not. The real question consequently in, wag the
public charge intended to degrade the King in the eye
of his subjects, and to bring dishonour and degradaties
on tl.e Ministry? It is contended by the defendant
that all this, is language of great respect toward,
the King; and that, therefore, it cannot be assumed du
waiter intended to traduce him, or to raise any improperfeeling towards him in the minds of his people; the con'trary is contended for by the prosecution. Now evil
publication is to be judged of by itself. That which has beer
said or done of any other publication, is no rule for yourjuer
ment. You are to say what was the object of this particulo
publication, and what was the intention of the writer at ti!
moment. Much allusion has been made to the aupPostt
freedom of the Press ; and it might have been supposed the
that freedom extends to the degree of treating his Majesty
with the most unlimited censure; but his Majesty's Minister°
are like all other persons entitled to the protection of tin
law. And although a measure way be discussed Reel'
on all its points, general calumny, and general slandet
is not to be brought forward in that discussion. It dnegi
not appear, however, that any such charge is mean
to be made here ; the extent of the charge is, 08t
it was intended to degrade his Majesty—to cause it to be
believed that he had become unpopular, and to excite 1'
teed and dissatisfaction towards his Ministry. Hsi
made these remarks. I have very little more to offer•
shall put the Paper into your hands, for it is y.t!'
province to judge of the question. It has been the rule
of persons sitting in my situation to deliver
their
think
opinions to the Jury on subjects like these, and 1 rather
the
language, or the terms of the expressions
I ought now also to offer mine. think that whatever
tie
to look at the whole of the publication, and to co
object of the writer from the whole. Dating that, I confess
that I think this is a libel; but though I declare tbat.
to be my own opinion, you are by no means to be bound
by that, fur the verdict you are to 'return is to be there'
suit of your own judgments, and of your own fair oP°
nions. If you think it is a libel your verdict will ba
against the defendants ; if not, it will be for them.
The Jury retired at twenty-five minutes past twelve to
consider their verdict.
The Jury, after an absence of three hours, returned
into Court, and returned the following verdict
We find the defendants guilty of a libel on his Al''
very great excitation, occasioned by the
jesty, but we do not find them guilty of a libel C"' hip
May
belleWCat
Majesty's Miuisters. We also beg to state it is our opirtiwif
that the article in question was written under feeli,ng.4
unpreeean'
agitation of the time; we therefore most earnestly beg tl
recommend all the defendants to the merciful consideration
of the Court."
Lord TENTERDEX desired the verdict to be handed tr?
to the Court, whieb was alone accordingly.