Star.
London, England, 1829-12-24 00:00:00

THIRD LIBEL.

TUE NMI V. PLUM AND OTIUS.

The following Jury were sworn to try a third case of Libel
against the Morning Awned. There being only eight Jurors in at-
tendance. the knoanze-Gansub prayed a tales, and the last four
la the list were added u common Jurors :

Hugh Hammersley I Richard Blanchard
John Lockey George Farley Down
Wm. Nicholson John SUvester
Henry &one I James Ward
David Beavan Francis Trueman
Thomas James Daniel Henry Straw.
The Attoaegy-GIXILAL observed that this was the third infor-
mation against the defendants; and thej might take it for granted
how newspapers were conducted, from what they had already seen.
Had there been three or four libels published through inadvertency
in different papers, it would be thought there were not grounds
sufficient for prosecution; but this was the third example front the
same quarter. The libel in question had a teudeney to degrade his
Majesty and both Houses of Parliament; ft stated that the House of
Commons was bloated with corruption, and the House of Lords
was net- better; and that his Majesty was a weak sad imbecile
Monarch, unable to uphold the dirtily of his station. If allegations
like these were to estaothe front newspapers, he geoid not conceive
how any country could be governed. They must recollect that
the stability of a Govenunent depends upon the integrity and abi-
lity with which it is conducted; and by their verdict they would
say whether the public press was justified in disturbing the pub-
lic peace, by caching the people to acts of insubordination--by
stating that the Monarch was treacherous, and the House of
Commons corrupt. Was this the mode to recoacile people to their
King, or make them obedient to the laws. Was this eon of attack to
be tolerated in any country ? The prosecution of such offences was
intended not more for public example than to preserve the people
from a delusion which the daily publication of such libek was cal-
culated to make. However fake they were, they might influence
public opinion. The eahibition of to-day and yesterday showed
how fit the defendant was to instruct the public through the medium
of the Press. He would not trespass further on them, but re-
quested their attention to the libel which he would read to them.
It was published in a number of the Morning Armed of the 16th
of June last.

The libel having been read—
The Arroeurr.Gemutat. observed, that hers was one of the
most direct attacks upon a Minister (Mr. Peel) that ever was
made. It accused him of being unfeeling, and totally beanies
and dead to the feelings of humanity, when he suffered 11 000 peo-
ple to be in the state described in the libel, actually starting. The
Learned Gentleman then read another paragraph from another
number of the llansisog Astrid, representing his Majesty tao he a
I weak and vacillating Monarch, and asserting the neceseity of tatt
abolition of the House of Commons. He would now, without far-
ther comment, leave the case to the Jury.
The same evidence was produced as in the former trials,
prove the proprietorship, and also the patent of jr. Peal. e• Seem
tart' of State.

Mr. Pou.oca, on the pan of Mr. Gutcb, declined addresshti the
Jury, as did Mr. BARSTOW on the part of Mr. Fisher.
Mr. dasgannsa then addressed the Jury, and said that it was

the third time be had appeared there within twenq•four hours.—
He was net aware that this trial would have so soon come no.

—He contended that the Jury were not competent to judge ►im
that he was charged with an offence against the House of Com
mons, and that they had it in their power to punish him witbetst
the intervention of the law, and that the present prosecutor
was a volunteer one by the Attorney-General., In support of
his argument, be would read from the Life of the late Mr.
Burke, a speech made by him in Parliament, in the year 1759,
en the prosecution of a Paper called the Work!. The Ithel was,
" That Warren Hastings would have been brought to another
trial unless the then House of Lords bad had spirit enough to put
it nff." Mr. A. proceeded with his reading of the alleged libel.
end said that it was gross oppression to punish a man in that Court
when he was still liable to be called before the bar of the House
of Commons. There he was ready to answer any ae.cutiat.on that
might be brought against him ; but here would the Attorney-
General bring forward the Right Honourable Gentleman, this
Honourable Member—put them into that box, and ask them if
they were the apostates alluded to ?—(A laugh.)—But he sub-
mitted that be was entitled to make any comments upon wy
matter of commerce or trade; and If there were any Loudon
tnerchant in the box, he trusted he would protect him against an
Information Med against him for expressing opinions that every
Engli►hman bad a right to give. With respect to the picture
of distress contained in the libel, the only melancholy part of it
was its troth; for at the time it was written the greatest
misery was prevailing in all the manufacturing districts. But
he did sat state this to bring • the Ministry into contempt, for
the measures adopted by Parliament, of -which be complained, were
passed when 'ante, now out of the Ministry, were influential
members of it. The Attorney General had attempted to persuade
them that the tendency of the article was revolutionary, and that
the laying the axe to the root of the evil meant cutting o human
life, but such was not the fact ; what he meant was, that the system
must be totally changed—that the Ministry should:be changed—that
the Attorney-General should be changed—that the Premier should
be driven from his post—that was what be meant ; not that the Attor-
cep General, et any one elm, should be shin. Again. he was perfectly
instilled in toying that there had better be ■a House of Commons
than that it should be the cause of all the misery that ►e believed it
to have been. With regard to that part of the publication which
repressed pity for the Yips, and which the Attorney-Genteel mid
had a tendency to bring hie Majesty litre contempt, it wag if the
same nature as that which another Jury were now cooddeeingsmth
he should say no more upon it than to observe that the Attorney.
General was she bet man wiscs had charged hies with disaffection
and disloyalty; but be &Sod him, with ill his acuteness, and the
help of alibis spies, to hunt out one fact in hie W. that could prove I
it. Mt. Alexander concluded by reminding tip Jury that this rap'
the third informatiost of the aerie, that had been Led to crush taps ;
and begged them beware that thedr yerritet did pas untwists the
liberty of the press.
The A?soattxr•Gxulset. tore to reply. He observed, that
from the extraordinary and repeated professions by Mr. Alexander

of Ms owe loyalty, he should have called a whole train of witnesses
to have spoken to his character. In that case, the Jury might have
been able to judge whether It was a single deviation by a man who
Iliad previously been one of the most loyal men in the kingdom ,
ice whether ft were one continued system of attack upon the
Government of the country, merely because that Government
bad executed a measure contrary to Mr. Alexander's avowed
opinions. This course had always been deprecated, and were it
generally adopted, what would become of the liberty of the Press?
Wm it suilletent, because the Editor of a Newspaper w•s opposed
to any measure of the Government, that he should be justified in
attacking the King, the Ministry, the House of Lords, and the
House of Commons? He (the Avanutzr-Genxitaa) was very
sorry to detain the Jury upon a yield= which was so plain. He
submitted that this was a libel of a most atrocious character upon
the House of Commons in particular, reflecting oa his Majesty's
Ministers the most scandalous and undeserved abuse, and bold.
ing up the King to that contempt which no moral or lop;
person could sanction. Unless this were put a atop to by the
strong arm of the law, bow could the Jury or himself tell how
much further Mr. Alexander would dare to carry his ins°.
knee? With respect to the number of prosecutions that had been
Instituted, no one was to be blamed but himself. He said he was
the victim of persecution, but why did be not try whether.. change
of conduct would not relieve' bias from further prosecutions? In-
stead of that, he had persevered in his illegal conduct; and he (the
Attorney-General) had no other course left but again to endeavour
to put a atop wit by farther punishment. The Defendant hid an-
waded that he ought not to be liable to punishment foe what he had
written in the present libel. but he would put it to the Jury to say
if it was not 'Widow to tell the people, who were represented
as discontented and starving, that they must expect no help irons
the Ministers, or from Parliament, but that their only hope
of relief was in an abolition of the Houle. of Commons. The
Attorney-General then called the attention of the Jury to the
falsehood of that part of the libel relating to the presentment of
the Petition. How dared the defendant speak thus of a man so
eminent for his rank and station as Mr. Peel? Did he know
that Gentleman—did be know that he had a hard heart—that be

was callous to the distress a his fellow-creatures—that be
treated them with contempt ? He had said that he saw hint
smile; but he (the Attorney-General) must doubt the fact,
backed only by his assertion. How dared he, then, hold up Mr.
Peel, n honourable and humane man, as laughing at the dis-
tresses of the nation? Wu this necessary for the liberty of the
press? If there were any class of men that could be separated
pent the community, or feel more acutely than the rest for the
miser/ of the people, it was the Ministry. If they could suppose a
est of men raised to that station utterly destitute of merit or caps-

city—heartless, cold, and indifferent to the interests of the nation
—yet they could not be supposed guilty of such conduct as was
here ascribed to Mr. Peel. For their own sake they could
Yet that was the absurd length to which the blindness of the de-
fendant had carried his. and that too against his own COIII4ACOCe and
honest conviction of the truth.—The Attorney-Gateral concluded
by saying, that so long as the defendant pursued the same course
he had hitherto adopted, so long should he think it bis duty to
put the law in motion against him.
Lord Tzirrsassat, in summing up, said that he was clearly of opi-
taloa that the publication was libellous.

Tbe Jury baying withdrawn for about ten minutes, returned with
a verdict of Guilty against all the defendants.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

GUILDHALL.

Was. Ilassogil Leads, who was committed on a former day fur
obtaining a quantity of gloves ender false pretences, was again
brought up yesterday, in the eimmiation that numerous charges
would be preferred against him ; *et was, however, only one
new complaint.
It appeared that, about six weeks ape, the prisoner went to
Messrs. Bentley, Parson, and Co. in Cbespride, silk.nianofaeta.
rers, with an order for one dozen Barcelona black handkerchiefs,
yV 0... g to be *mid by Mr. Masking. the litlea-dcatve, vn
-14. The clerk auspemlas the genuineness of tbe outer.
;;Zilt to Mr. Bentley, who- declined sending the goods by the
bearer of the note, sod on inquiry it turned out that the order was,
as baellseen suspected, a forgery. Mr. Making proved the latter
' (set, and said that the primer had formerly been in his art*,
but was dismissed by him two pan ago. The primer was man-
edited for ettemptiog to commit the fraud.