Star.
London, England, 1822-10-22 00:00:00

might le; he had never heard them say They intended
to prosecute on this publication.
. The publication wai then put in; and the libellous
passages set forth in the declarathin were read by
Mr. Abbott. This closed the pro•ecutoi's case.
Mr. Sea ttLETT then proceeded to address the Jnry
on the part of the defendant, and obse, ved, in making
the Objections he had dune, previous tb the opening
of the cause, he had only done what he considered
as his duty, and bowed with submission to the de-
cision of his Lordship; and would take it for granted
that they came to try the question now before them
with unbiassed minds. As to the address of his
Learned Friend, it was made up of common-place
observations, suited to all such cases as this ; but if
the publication now before them deserved the cha-
racter given to it by his Learned Friend, he (Mr.
&aim) could not believe his Hon. Friend, the
King's Attorney-General, would have suffered it to
remain so long unnoticed, or have left the prosecu-
tion of it to this Societ,-, or to Mr. Sharpe, their Ho-
norary Sec,wary, or Mr. Murray, their Solicitor, or
Mr. flora • Orton, their witness. With respect to
the book it•klf, and the intention of the publisher :
The book contained observations on public institu-
tions, but were we, therefore, to suppose that Mr.
Dolby's intention was to overturn the Monarchy ?
Would any man contend that Dr. Swift, when he
wrote and published Gulliver's Travels, had any such
intention ? Yet that work, especially the Vqyage to
Brobdignag, contained satire more strong than any
contained in this work. Did any one suppose the
late Lord Chesterfield had any. intention of overturn-
ing the Monarchy when he wrote the following severe
sentences Monarchies differ, but all Monarchs are
the same. He who is absolute wishes to continue ab-
solute. He who is restricted in his power wishes to
become absolute." He would ask if we were to pro-
hibit all works of satire ? If this work was to be
cnademned as libellous, we must do so. The Satires
of Horace—those of Juvenal—would all be con-
demned ; for if Mr. Murray ever read any of these,
he would find them abounding in severe satire on
Roman Senators ; and, it might be said, that in pub-
lishing these, libellous reflections were cast on modern
Senators, under ancient names? He would shew
that our modern authors had been in the habit of
publishing such satires on the highest Authorities of
the laud, without being prosecuted f 4 libels. He'
would particularly notice Dean Swift's Poem of the
Legion Club. It begins—
" As I stroll the city, oft
" See a building large and lofty,
' Not a bow-shot from the College,
" Half the globe from sense and knowledge.
By tiw prudent architect
" Placed against the Church direct,
" Making good my grand-dame's jest—,
" Nearest the Church—you know the rest.
81 Tell us what this pile contains— •
" Many a head that holds no brains!"
Everybody knew that this was a most severe satire on
the Isis)) House of Parliament. The Learned Coun•
sel Allen proceeded to comment on the passages se-
lected from the alleged libel, that under the head of
Common Law, and to the passage relating to Mr.
Justice Pemberton, and contended that there was no
libel, either implied or otherwise, on Judge Pember.
ton. It alluded to common law, and Mr. Justice
Pemberton, on the occasion on which he made use of
this expression—that he had in his time made more
law than both Houses of Parliament—only alluded
M the decisions which, after argument, he had been
obliged to come to. So as to the fining of Mr. Davi-
son and Mr. Clement, he did not intend now either to
justify or blame those measures, but they were both
adopted by the Judges on common law, and not on
statute law. One thing he would venture to affirm,
namely, that there was not a single Judge on the
Bench who would feel any gratitude towards Mr.
Murray for coming forward and assuming that their
conduct stood in need of defence. The Learned
Counsel then proceeded to comment on the other pas-
sages which had been quoted, respecting Church and
State, Parliament, &c. and contended that the pas•
sages were only applicable as a satire on those who
abused the terms to which he had adverted. The
writer, in his explanation of the words" meetings of
Parliament," did not allude to the present Parliament,
but to past Parliaments; and if the defendant did say
that part was absurd, surely he might be justified.—
Was it not an absurdity, when a Member of a former
Parliament submitted a proposition, that a pound
note and a shilling *ere equal in value to a guinea?
Ile could also cite decisions of Parliament making
taxes necessary and indispensable, one week, and ono
the following week coming to a resolution that such
taxes were Wholly unnecessary. But, though he said
these were absurdities, and pointed them ous as such;
did he by that express any wish •or design to over-
turn the Constitution? Neither by pointing out the
errors of particular Clergymen, Statesmen, or Judges,
did he desire to overturn the Church, the State, or the
Law ; as he was convinced our Establishments were,
all in principle so good, and so strong, that they did'
not stand, in need of any defence from Mr. Murray,
Is Sharpe,. or. the Constitutional As'ociation. He
admittill that Usk parlieatioNwas a severe satire, bet.
he.deniect that these was anything libelous in it. Be-•J
xides; he would deny that though a work should wig
flaps contain some detached passages of a libellant
tendency, that stiCh passages should render the book
seller liable to be prosecuted for a libel. The present
was a satire, intended to lash the vices of the age, and
inch publications had been tolerated in all agei.—
Itas there anything in this work more severe than
the lines of Pope— . .
" The hungry Judges soon the lenience silk
And wretches had* that Jarymen nay diner
The author had never been considered-as an ,objet of
prosecution,••much fess had. the bookseller been held
liable to punishment. A fter some ftether observations,
the Learned Counsel concluded by expressing his ton-
tietion. that. the Jury would not find the defendant
!tray, noon the prosecution of' vs set of individuals.
for a- publication which the Law Officersof the Crowe
had not tosvirilered themselves called on to-notice: •
The Cnratr•Jurrrce senimed up, and commented
is he proceeded, on the several passages set out is
the retitled. Of the tendency of those passages, toe&
he thought could doubt. Their tendency *tart°
bringtheDovernrnem irt'Church and• State, the King,
the Crosiiisetion, and the' Lea; into. contempt. As
tts the intention- of the party publishing, humus tri•
Islistalittoeld only judge &lite -intention -of a. searalsy-
eleareffirtrw)iials.hrs acts produced ; and en that prin.
Jury must act on the present oc-

elk tike Court and