Star.
London, England, 1811-02-08 00:00:00

,;.

r

ndictraetit chargedhim with having attributed every
thing that was bad to Lord Castlereagh ; he now
asserted the truth of his statement, and was ready to
spew that he was that base person.'
• I Jere some marks of approbation having appeared
among the audience pact of the Court,
Lord Er atasoitotiou said, if any individual at-
tempted to dtsturh the Court, he should be sent to
'a place where he should be more properly seen after;
he also orlered that part'of the Court to be cleared.
Mr. Finnerty said he was ready to prove what he
had jest •stated ; and if the Noble Lord or his advo-
cates were willing to justify Urn, they had an oppor-
timity of answering the charge, But, in the name
of 41 goodness, how would it appear, if, while he
was sent to prison lot' asserting this, the Noble Lord
should be impeached for any one of the acts of which
he was now ready to adduce evidence t He nottask-
ed, would the Court allow any of these affidavits to
be read
Lord ELLENEOROUGIT said, if they were of the na-
.Sure of those he had already tendered, certainly not.
Mr. Finnerty here tendered certain affidavits;' de-
scribing different species of pnnishMent said to have
been inflicted in Ireland, but Which the Court refused

to receive.
He then said, he was ready, if he had been allowed,
tri.prove the truth of every part of the libel. If he
-was refused that, he must seem not only to be a li-
beller, hut, what to his mind was worse, a liar. The
affidavits which he-was ni-,w ready to produce, and
for every one of which he could have procured a
- hundred such, he had taiccn the trouble to go to Ire-
land to select. To this trouble and expence,he had
etp6sed hitnsaf, misled by the case of Draper, who
was allowed a complete proof in justification, and
even- though great part of the proof offered by him
tinted 64 to be false, escaped without any punish-
tattitt'bVit being held to bail, purely because there had
been ca irritation excited between the parties. -
The Court then called on the defendant 'to state
what he had to offer in mitigation.
. Mr. Finnerty contended, that it was for the Attor-
ney General to state his case first, so as to allow the
defendant, who had suffered judgment to go by de-
hatilh the right of replying.
It was ruled, however, that no affidavits, having
been filed on the part of the prosecution, the practice
tay the other way.
Mr. Finnerty then began by stating, that he was
stwaresi all the disadvantages under which he la-
bowed, it having been his misfortune to build on a
precedent of their Lordships' own, and to regulate
his conduct by it ; whereas their Lordships did not
now see it expedient to allow him the benefit of that
precedent. In appealing to the Laws of England,
so admired for their. beauty, he could not doubt,
liowever, of a favourable results when the question
to be considered was sin,ply this—Whether a man
who had *suffered oppression and calumny should be
condemned to punishment, because he had ventured
to consplain of the author of that oppression—who- ,
Cher, in fact, self-defence, that first law of Nature,,
ihonld be deemed a crime—whether a British subject
.shouldtedeptived of what had been emphatically
termed the last refuge of the unfortunate, the right
to complain ? He came there to ask for justice' , with-
out surrendering his freedom. It was his most sin-
' cere wish in stating his case, to do so with every ex-
pression of respect for the Court. This he did not
from fear, but truly from respect for their high sta-
tion. The last place in which fear ought to prevail,
was a-British Court of Justice. When he asserted
his innocence, it might be asked, why he had with-
'drawn his plea, and allowed judgment to go by de.
fault ? To adduce evidence before a Jury, however,
after what had fallen from his Lordship as to the ca-
lumnious natnre of the publication, he thought could
be of no utility. He was never actuated, -however,
by any consciousness of guilt. He never meant ei-
ther to confess guilt or. to supplicate for mercy. No,
be knew Lord Castlereagh too well, and respected
himself too much to have done either. Had he made
any false charge against that Noble Lord or any man
else, and he had afterwards ascertained that he was
in error, he: should have 0.....-aight it his duty, prompt-
ly and publicly, to have made an apology, even had'
he become sensible of his error after he had suffered
punishment. He thanked GOD that he did not dis-
like any human being so much as to forget in that
'dislike therespect which he owed to truth and tali;
ban character. The affidavits which he had to pro.
&Ice, if they bad been suffered to be read, would
ha-se:exhibited such a picture as could hardly be eon-
ceived in any country, either in a state of civilization
or of barbatism. • The Law of Libel was of such a
nature, that whatever the Judge who tried the case
those to declaie. a libel, the Jury must find it to be
so. In stating this, le-did not mean any thing dis-
teapectful to their Lordships. The law of libel did
hot originate with them:- Judge Mallet,-so far back
as the.teign 'of 'King Charles, declared' k libel against
a strdinpetlo Ise worse than' if it had been aping-en
kotest woman. ICA this was the law to vvhich Lord
• Castlereagh came for a vindication of his character:
—if he had proceeded by information, he must have
• averred- and proved the falsity of it ; or if be had
blotight his action, he (Mr. Fmnerty) would have
been allowed a .proof of the truth of the statement.
—This, however, he called a vindication (*his cha-
racter. All he ,asked, however, was to gratify his re.

se.ntment.
Mr. Justice BLAxc said, the defendant must '
not indulge in ir...sa libels, but mast confine himself
to matter in 'mitigation of the offence already corn-
' sinitted by him.
Mr. Finnerty contended that he was now stating
what went in mitigation of his offence so far as the
tad *as concerned.
Lord Eure,saonotmu said, he felt compassion for
the defendant, the more so, as he seemed so uncoil-
. • acious of his own sitnation. The 'Court, however,
- could not allow of all this opprobrium to be thrown
Out where eie party had no opportunity cf answering;
•
the cal timi y.
• Mr. Finnerty trusted be might at least be allowedl
to say, that he did not envy the prosecutor the way in
. which he-had taken to vindicate big character, and bel
presumed •to -think that no man would. Calumniesi
.e.pd prejndicei had gone --out against his (Mr. Fin-I
eirrty'sl character ; but he could say that: he had
never: in his life 'been. capable oflattempting, or eveni
.
isedttatpigi au act .of criselty;decart, 'or.
lepf,iTaawyl7,4.ise which ha~ren gel lift sw'
'44414' 10.0 #;P:, 14*i

I

wasfor entertaining them alone that he had been pm.. doet of the defendant this day? What de•cripeoesof
secuted. He could have no sinister motive in perse.l nien, from their Lordships down to the County Ma.
vering in those sentiments ; he could have no ambit. gistrates, had he not libelled? and then concluded
tion to gratify ; and his uniformity of principle af- with desiring their Lordships not to send him to the
forded at least presumptive evidence that lie thought custody of these Magistrates, bscanse, owing to po.
himself right. . i 'hie.' differences, he was of opinion his life would be.
Mi. Finnerty proceeded to notice the prejudice ' eniar.gered. Did, their Lordships—could any one
which prevailed against men who exposed persons in suppt se that the defendant really believed so ? If he
high situations. This, however, proceeded from a ; did, lie mnst be utterly ignorant of the laws, and of
perverted view of the subject, for such men were en• i the,mode of administering them in this country. No
titled to reward rather than reprobation, as they thus ! Magistrate was capable of wishing to injure or in.
gave to a State an opportunity of rescuing itself out • commode any person in such a situation, but if all or
of improper hands. Was he, then, to be punished for . any of them had such a wish, none, not even the
reprobating what he offered to prove ? It was a 1 whole of them, dared attempt to execute it. The li.
doctrine laid down by Lord Kenyon, that a man who ' bel he did not wish to read. There wail nothing in
was himself a libeller, could not complain of another i it either so malignant or so wicked as that which had
who libelled him. The principle he conceived was i fallen from the defendant to-day. He called it wicked,
just, and on this principle Lord Castlereagh had no : for to his mind nothing could be so wicked as for h
right to complain of hint. Let the Court look at the I man to take advantage of a situation similar to that
order for his being sent home from Walcheren, and in. which the defendant stood tinclay, to vent calum.
then say if this reasoning did not apply • for what : pies and libels, doubly more malignant than those
could be a more grievous libel than to hold him out ; fcg which he was come to answer. but who wis this
as a suspected or seditious person ? A libel was : person who had , placed himself on -an eminence,
stated to he a misdemeanor, because it had a tendency when compared to Lord Castlereagh ? Who was he
to provoke a breach cf the peace ; but what could I who, issued such a proclamation of his own impor.
'their Lordships think of a libel that had a tendency tince? What was he by his own account ? The
to provoke assassination ? a situation in which the or- Editor of an Irish Newspaper called " The Press,"
der in question had placed the defendant, as appeared i during the rebellion in Ireland, -and who had stood
from Mr. Power's affidavit. But what Must the in the eillory.
country think of this Noble prosecutor, who occupied Lord ELLENBOROUGH said this was irregular.
himself in looking after such an humble individual as The Arroexev.Geeenet contessed, that after all
the defendant, when he might have been so much the vile and scandalous matter which the defendant
more usefully employed in ordering bark to be sent had thrown out against Lord Castlereagh, which did
over to our sick troops at Walcheren ? Mr. Justice not at all touch on the case, the Court. was right to
Blackstone laid it down, that where a person was in- confine him (the Attorney-General) strictly to the
dieted for an assault, if the prosecutor *as the first libel. He begged, however, that the Court would
assailant, the defendant was entitled to an acquittal.. recollect all theerile slanders the defendant had uttered
Now, if such was the rule in an actual breach of the —the most gross and vile that had ever fallen from
peace, or even in the case of murder, should it be de. the mouth of man, when they came to pronounce sen-
nied in a case of libel, which had only a tendency to fence. He begged that they would recollect how the
a breach of the peace ? Who then, he asked, was defendant had conducted himself towards the prose-
the aggressor in this case, or who had given the. cutptesead how the Attorney-General had conducted
greater offence ? Mr. Finnery wes..frocceding to himself towards the defendant, and would deal with
.Ht
allude to a publication relative to hißi Morning him accordingly. Even according to the Defendant's
Post, when es, • own account of himself, however, he had been a con•
Lord ELLENBOROUGH remarked, that there was ,acted libeller in Ireland, and he was now found to
hardly an observation the defendant had.made which. be a libeller in this country also. When this was the
was appl:calee to the present case. It the defendant description lie gave of himself, Was there wonder that
did not churn to confine himself to the 'matter (adore , lesho* not be wished that such a person should re-
the Court, they would be under the necessity of re.: tpain with our army in Walcheren, though he (the
mending him till next term. Attorney General) did nut conceive himself bound
• Mr. Finnerty said he was present when Gilbert w state all the reasons which led- to that measure i*
Wakefield made a speech in that Courted three hours' But wits he entitled to libel and arraign the conduct
length. The Court, however, might dispose of hirer of Lord Castlereagh, on conjecture; or was be en.
$s they pleased. He was now, if they wished its titled to complain, because it was not thought proper
ready to close what he had to say. that Peter Finnerty should remain with the army ?
, Lord ELLENBOPOLGH said he might proceed. • Particularly, was he to be suffered, when called. here
Mr. Finnerty then offered a statement as to what for judgment, to heap on the head of the prosecutor
bad been done to himself in Ireland thirteen years all those libels he had vomited forth to-day ? The.
ago ; as to grounds on which he purposed to justify Attorney-Geveral did not, however, complain of the
the opinion he had stated ; as to the Government of lenity the Court had shown to the Defendant, or that
Lord Castlereagh in Ireland, and different authori- be had been suffered to load the prosecutor with all
ties on the subject of Irish affairschtring that period, but these calumnies. But why did he not complain heo
was informed that these things could not be assumed. Because nothing but his own sense of decency could
He then proceeded to consider the punishments with prevent him from doing so, and if that did not pee.
which the Court bad been in the tise at different times vent him which alone could, be must be visited. with
of visiting the crime of libel. In the time of Philip a propoitionate punishment. It would all be for the
and Mary, a libeller against the Government had considdetion of the Court in apportioning the puni, !l-
inen sentenced to imprisonment for a month, and m ment, to look at the spirit with which he published
pay a fine of £lOO. In the reign of Queen Eliza- the libel, the spirit with which he allowed judgment
beth, a similar crime had been punished by impri- to go by default, and the spirit he had manifested to-
sonment for two months, and by a fine of £200. day ; and for all these they would measure out a pro-
Even in modern times, Mr. Herriot, for a libel on Jortionate punishment. To attempt to aggravate the
Earl St. Vincent, which was both seditious and false ' guilt of the defendant would, indeed, he ineffectual.
—whereas the present libel was not seditious, and 'Whit he had said to.day was quite sufficient, and
was strictly true—was sentenced to six months im- greatly exceeded the original libel in malignity. His
prisonment. In the case of Draper there was no pu- I passion for injuring" Lord Castlereagh had surpassed
nishment, and in that of Blagdon, it was imprison.. the desire which most men feel on such an occasion
ment for a short period. He was induced too, to no- Ito benefit themselves. He seemed like a man reek.
tice the kinds of prisons to which it had been custo- i less of hti own life, if he could thereby deprive
marts to send persons who received the judgment of ; another of existence. He had heaped upon him evert.
the Court. For his own part he would suffer death I thing which could render him the object of ignominy
rather than be sent to a prison under the care of the ; and disgrace. It was for the Cnurno say what for such
Middlesex Magistrates, conscious that a lingering : aggravated conduct, should be his punishment. The
death must be the result. He again declared, that ' Defendant had addressed their Lordships on the sub-
he was innocent of every intention to write a libel ; ; ject of punishment, and had called on them to send
and if he should be told that no person was entitle ' him to a particular jail. He (the Attorney-General)
to plead ignorance of- the law, he must answer that lipped, however, the punishment would not he oa-
this was a law no where to be found, and to which. fined to imprisonment ; but would be such as should
hhe rule of ignorantia legie non excuse did not apply.—' mark the opinion of the Court as to conduct such as
There was some excuse for his ignorance of a law in • that which the Defendant has this day pursued. He
their interpretation of which even the Judges them-t, did not call on the Court for an unreasonable degice
selves so completely differed from each other, and lof severity. He only begged of' them to look at the
even from themselves. His Lordship must recollect' nature and magnitude of the offence for which they
bow widely be elle the present Attorney-General had:: were now called on to measure out a proportionate
differed from each other ine the recent case of Mr. I punishment. If it did not exceed.alllibels they had
Perry, as to what constituted a libel. After some . ever under their consideration, then the punishment
further observations, the Defendant concluded by ! would be less than he expected ; if it did, the Court
assuring the Court that where he had erred, he had ' would feel it to be their duty to visit it accordingly,
done so from ignorance, and not from any disrespect : tempering, as they would never fail to do, justice with
to the Court, or to the law of the land. He had suf. mercy. .
fund grievous provocations, and he was now in em- i Mr. GARROW shortly followed on the same side.
bayrauments which he could not describe to the : chiefly urging on the attention of the Court the had
Court. , Every thing he had to expect depended on : use which hid been made of their Lordships' indul.
his Ownesertion; but still he must bear up against : gence granted on a former day.
misfortunes. Even in the dungeon of Dionysius, could • Mr. Justice Geosr then pronounced the judgment
such a place be found out for his reception, he would . of the Court in nearly Om following terms :eel, Peter '
not purchase his liberation by exchanging characters Finnerty—You are t 3 receive the sentence of this
with Lord Ceitlereagh. Court, upon an indictment charging you with having
The Arriiat:Er-Gaxastat. _said, he had beard the composed and published one of the most-inflammatory
speech just made by the defendant with regret, and libels against the Lord Viscount Castlereagh, as one
a considerable part of it not without disgust. He of his Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, that
knew that the Court were anxious to, hear any thing the envenomed pen of malice could put upon paper,
that a criminal' brought to their bar for. judgment in respect of a gentleman of his rank and situation its
thought could be of service ;it) him. He knew how the country :—.4 this libel we must deem you to be I
long they had abstained from checking the defendant the.composer, for upon the indictment it is so charg.
even in the statement of highly irrelevant matter. —. ed, and by your snffering judgment to gh by &Inuit,
He also knew that they-would be inclined to view yno have admitted the fact. Upon the precise nature
his case with a merciful consideration, which his con- of it I have had so lately occasion to comment.. in
duct did not deserve. • There was no person, how- giving the judgment of the Court on another offen.
ever, who heard the defendant, but must see that he der, that I need only repeat, that that which was an
had been actuated. thioughout by a deliberate pus- offence in him, must be a still greater offence in you,
poae of vilifying and calumniating the prosectileir.— the author ; and whether we consider the ceps taken
That he was resolved at every ea pence, fierfar et nepe,
,by you, preparatory to the publication of this libel,
to ruin the character of Lord Castlereagh. This, or the malignant purpose of taking those steps, and
too, it was obvious, he did against his own knowledge sending it into the world, nothing can he devi ei
cf the feet. He repeated it, againsthis ownknowledse much more studiously libelous, base, cruel or mains.
of the fact. He did not assert this unadvisedly.— ! pant, than this offensive publication. As to mit*.e.
When it was known, however, that Lord Castlereagh eion, we in vain look for any thing like it i the whole
did not begin to have any concern in the Government of your conduct seems to shevi your haiing proceeded
of Inlaid till March, 1798, and the circumstances with a cool deliberate- intention to commit the crime
imputed to him by the defendant were seated to have charged upon you { Awijn what has passed this day,
occurred in 1797, he was well warranted in saying we are sorry to find nothing like e sense of your offence,
so. Could any thing eke ;wire disgraceful, could any or any thing like contrition.. I have stated that the
thing be more destructive of liberty, . which the-de. whole of this subject. has been lately • before us.,—lt
'-- eresaude4 to esteem so highly. titan the conr has been so lately before us, and is so fresh in our me-

af

mniy, tfiatire have to diltculty in paging upon Tel.
without further deliberation, the sentence of the l, ,s
and, accoidingly, this Court doth order and adjuti.,Tp,
that for this offence you be imprisoned in his Maje,ws
Geol. in the County of Lincoln, fur eighteen ch-nent
months, and that; at the espitation of that time, )(.0
do gist security for your good behaviour for rive
years,• yourielf in £slO, with two sureties in c 2:()
each ; and that you be further imprisoned ia the said
Gaul till such security be given. And that you he%
the mean time committed to the custody of th...
shat of du. Ni.irshalsea its execution of your senttnce."