Star.
London, England, 1819-01-18 00:00:00

1

t
~.

dered the Liberty of the Press, and the Habeas Cor-
pus Act, and Trial by Jury, as sacred parts of the
Constitution. • The people of England had enjoyed
the Liberty of the Press since the revolution, and GOD
fortiid they should
.ever lose it. He felt a greater
anxiety on this subject, freer a circumstance that had
lately come to his knowledge. An ingenious foreigner,
Who was perhaps acqUainted with the engines of this
Government, hed published a work, since translated,
Leading to chew that there were disadvantages con-,
meted with this sacred privilege, which reedered
the protection of it nmadvisablb. The • man who
would assail this important sight should be consi-
dered as a public enemy ; and in proportion as the
right which he attempted to violate was sacred, that
violation ought to be punished. The Liberty of the
Press meant, that all might drink as they pleased,
and publish what they thought, without previous
controul. But that liberty was incompatible with
the power to destroy. private character. If thatwere
the definition of the liberty of. the press, it would be
a despotism under which no man could live. This.
sacred power had been ribusnl by Mr. Clement's:
who had wielded the mighty engine that gave and
tack away character, and had the• power to throw
open the doors of the prison-house, with a hand
. guided by none of those sentiments of benignity so
cheethig to the possessor. The person pleaded for
was a man of an honest, temperate life—unhappy--
Lad been a captive for several months without guilt ;
and against this object was the authority of the press
exercised ; against him were the minds of the people
misened, by the sting of-this publication, which re-
pAsented bins as a man capable of treason, spoil,
and revolution. Why should this be added to the
stock of calamity of him.-who had been snatched
from his family, with whom he had enjoyed the
sweets of his industry too dearly to think of disterb-
int; theland in which his labours had been rewarded?
With respect to-the damages., it was only necessary
to say that the plaintiff had been traduced when he
liachm means of vindicating himself; and that the
iejury had Foie into welded circulation by the in-
tim:tee of him to whop fie owed this outrage upon
hit feelings.
• The-following evidence was then called:
Ann Ward (examined by Mrs DenssAts).—Witness
- is the daughter of the plaintiff, Frank %Ward ; he is a
lace-manufacturer, conducting his own business, and
employing ten or twv„lve journeynten. WitEess re-*
membered the • constables coming to her father's
house on the 10th June, 1617, and searching it, but
they did.not take any thini? away. They remained
there nearly an houri.and when they went away, her
fadier followed them. This way en the Tuesday and
she did not see her father again till she saw him- in
prison on the Seturday followinee lie did not return
to his family till the middle of November. -
Samuel Payne, Lsq. (examined by Mr. Currir).—
Witness is a Solici:r in Nottingham. He remem-1
bleed meeting the pi.tinti .(Ward)- on the 10th oft
June, in the street at Nottingham. After relating
what had happened at his house, he asked what wits I
the best :wide of obtaining redress? Witne:s ad-
vised him to apply to the Magistrates, where they!
were sitting. Witness understood that be did do so,
aad that he was by them committed to prisoe.
Cross-examined by Mr. Gees:zee—The plaintiff
did not call upon him at his house ; but when he met
him in the street, he was coming in a direction from
his own house to that of the witness. Ile believed
the plaintiff had previously laia under. some suspi-
cion with the Magistrates, on accoueit of his having
been the treasurer of a -subscription raised for the
purpose of defending some pin-sons who were tried
at Leicester..
John Holmes (examined by Mr. DasistAN).--Wi-
tens is a lace-maker at Nottingham ; he knew Oliver
t care in Jude, 1817 e witness was apprehended and
sent to Coldbath-fields prison ; Ward, the plaintiC,
was in prison at Nottingham at the same time as!
witness, and he saw him ironed to a man of the'
name of Haynes, when they • were all brought to
Coldbath-fields prison together.
William Cliffe gave evidence to the same effect,
and added, that he and the plaintiff, after remaining
in Coldbath-fields prison about a week, were taken
together to Oxford Castle, and there kept in clew
confinement-till the 13th of November, 1617. (Mr.
Demean was proceeding with the examination of this
witness, as to the manner of their confinement, on
• which Mr. GURNEY rose and objected to the questions
as irrelevant to the case before the Court; and the
Court being of the'saine opinit a,' after some conver-
sation, the witness was ordered to steed down.)
George Goodger is deputy Publisher of the 06-
senor. the sale of the Paper is very great. Its sale
on Sunday, the 9th of Novera'a,r, 1517. was
a.id. the Monday edition (200 J, exclusive of the nn-
stamped ones, of which be keew nothing. He could
net form any idea how many were sent out unstamp-
they not having passed through his hands. The
Monday Observer had twice, v..hen public interest was
excited, after the regular publication, published an
additional impression upon unstaniped sheets, with a
blank leaf, in the way of the one produced.
Robert Webster (examined by Mr. DENMAN)...-..
ViitriCSS is a letter-carrier at Derby. Oa Monday,
the larli of November, 1817, he received a great
go-laity of the Observer Newsrapers. They were
d..livered to him by Mrs. Eaton, die v-;fe of.the jailer
at Derby, who desired him to distribute. them gra-
teitcisly ; and she gave him a shillinte far so, doing.
delivered them to the Lawyers, the Doctors, and
the Gentlemen of the town.

Thomas Cook is a lette:-carrier at Leicester. Met
received a quantity of Monday 01 vvcrs in Novem
bt-m, 1817 ; Irs thought as•manv a: 209. He eeivgd
them at the Post-office with his letters; thous* it
was not usual to receive them in that way... Ile /as
desired to distribute the gratuitously, and accord.
ingly he did sa---some of them in thrtown; and
others he gave to the country carriers, to take into
the country. There was another letter:carrier At
Leicester, and he also received the like quantity of
Monday Observers to distribute in the same way.
Witness received two or three shillings at the Postr
office for his trouble.
This closed the evidence for the plaiutiff. The al-
leged printed libel was then read by the clerk,. and
compared with it (as set krth in the record).
Mr. 4.ooLvitu4 took sqveral objections on account
of inaccuracy, but they fere over-ruled by the Coati
Mr. Gummy then Jose to address the Jury in de.
fence. He heartily concurred in the observation of

Li; Li:trued Vac'id, that political feelings ought not
to enter jet.° discussions at the bar; at the same time,
he could not help observing that his Learned Friend's
practiCe, in the manner of conducting this cause,
little accorded with his professions. His Learned
Friend could not truly say, that politics had not been.
mixed up in the statement of his client's case. If any
person bad only heard three-fourths or four-fifths of
j
his Learned Friend's very eloquent speech, he must?
have imagined that this was not an action againstl
Mr. Clement, the Proprietor of the Observer News-
paper, hat an action against the Secretary of State,
for illegally imprisoning and cruelly oppressing the
plaintiff. In truth, he (Mr. Gurney) believed that
the statement which his Learned Friend was instruc-
ted to make, was much more the object of this action
than any damages which the plaintiff could affect to
have sustained, or could hope from the defendant.
His Learned Friend, in the course of his address, had
let out some. things that were rather extraordinary—
some things a little inconsistent with what every man
knew as matter of history—somethings which would
' excite in one's mind a suspicion that the plaintiff
really could not have sustained any injury or damage
from this publication. His Learned Friend would
represent to the Jury, that the shocking outrages
which were committed in the neighbourhood of Not-
Aingliam, which called for the interference of the
'Legislature, and which produced in that district a
reign of terror, not unlike that which prevailed dur-
ing the French Revolution, arose from the oppression
' and cruelty of the masters towards their journeymen
and that Mr. Ward, recollecting that he had once
himself been a poor journeyman, would not treat
those persons in the oppressive and extortionate man-
ner in which they had been treated by other masters.
!fe (Mr. Gurney) believed he might take it as matter
of history that this representation of his Learned
Friend was nut quite true; but whatever was the'
cause of those disturbances, it was as foreign to the
matter before the Jury as to any other cause tried
during the Eirtirigs, or which remained to be tried.—
Great part of his Learned Friend's speech was ad-
dressed to this toint, namely, that Mr. Ward, who,
when he ceved to be sure of the approbation, and
ceased tb become an object of confidence with one
set of persons (who those were it was easy to judge),
had become an object of distntst and suspicion with
all ; that Mr. Ward was arrested—that he was ar-
rested under a charge of treasonable practices, and
confined from the 16th of June, until the 13th of
November ; and that every possible attempt was
made to excite unfavourable feelings respecting him.
Out slimly, if Mr. Waed's imprisonment were the act
of the Eiecutive authority, and ifthe defendant were
it norant of the object of it, not one wend said upon
tbii subject could be applicable to the case agakist
kir. Clement, who could have. nothing to da with the
pi:tied:Ps itaiirisonment. If the defendant had no-
thing to do with that.act (justifiable or not); surely.
the introduction of .such .a topic could only he for
the purpese of exciting. an .nitdae impression against
him, and make him account fer the conduct rf others.
His Learned Friend had stated, that the plaintiff had
been ground down and oPposed. The Jury were not
to assume that merely upon the statement of Ns'
Learned Friend, who had al,o said that the plaintiff
WAS deprived of the means of seeking redress, in con:0
sequence of the passing of as Act of Indemnity. -Ito
was true that tlra Legislature had passed an Act of
Indemnity ; and amongst other reasons assigned for.
that measure were, first, heiause it was notorious that
a treasonalsle conspiracy hid existed in the cumin y ;
and next. that it would not be fit or proper that the
lives of those who had given information ofsuch con•
spiracy shoat be put in hazard from the malice of
their enemies, should their names be given. But these
considerations had nothing whatever to do with the
qeestiou how before the Court, which simply was, what
injury the plaintiff had sustained from the defendant?
This was the siiTle question for the consideration of
the.; ury, and that was to beascertained by discovering
as well as they could, in what the injury consisted.
Did they believe that the plaintiff had silaained any
injury from this publication? Did they believe that
those who thought ill of. him before, would think
worse of him for the article which appeared in the
Merger V Did they believe that those who thought
well of him before, would think worse of him by
reading the supposed libel?. If they did not, why
then what injury could this plaintiff have sustained,
which would-entitle him to call. upon the Jury for
any amount of damages against the .defendant ? But
there was one single feature in this case which would
.at once decide the point for their consideration. The
plaintiff stated in his declaration that he had deser-
vedly acquired ;he good opinion of all his fellow-
subjects, and that for the purpose of bringing him
into.public scandal, infamy, and disgrace, the libel
in question was published ; and it concluded by al-
leging that divers of his neighhourshad thought the
worst of him on that account. If this were the case,
why did he not bring his action amongst his neigh-
bours ? Why did he. who lived in Nottingham, and
who told the Jury that he had lost the good opinion.
and high estimation of all his neighbours, in conse-
e -nce of this publication, try this case where his
character and conduct were best known,. amongst
those neighbours whose estimation he had lost by
means of this libel? He (Mr. Gurney) must say
that he thougl:tthe conduct of the plaintiff, in bring-
ing his action lt2A.) miles from Nottingham, in a place
where be was utterly unknown, was the clearest
and most decisive proof that he had suffered no da•
mage whatever. Nothing was more clear than that
a man who complained of being injured in the esti-
snatlon of his neighbours, and had, in fact, suffered
that injury, would bring his action among those
,neighbours, instead of waiting. for a considerable
leiii3th of time, and then bring it before aJury by
whom he was unknown:, when in fact he ought
have tried his case at Nottingham, either in March
or. July last. Such conduct on the part of the plain.
tip was decisive judgment. against himself. Admit-
ring, however, that the plaintiff was Mankato a ver/
diet, the only. remaining question was, the amount
of damages he was entitled to receive, The defendant
was undoubtedly liable to a verdict agairisthimielf.
-His Learned Frimiti admitted that the Obuiecr wasl
.one of die most respectable public journals, and re-
k4lected credit generally upon its conductors. It should
be recollected that the defendant Was the. Proprietor
of the Paper, and not the author of the article, which
was !Olen. to him by a person who sawed him that
it was well founded. It appeared, howeeeri that be
had been misinformed in that respect ; and certain!!