Star.
London, England, 1819-11-15 00:00:00

Till ZINO V. MRS. CARLII.P.

Mr. GURNEY said, the defendant in this case had
been attending for some days past in Court, to shew
cause against the Rule obtained for a Criminal In-
formation against her; for selling " Paine's Age of
Reason." As she was in a situation which rendered
it inconvenient for her to attend, their Lordships
would perhaps hear her now.
Map. Carlile then came forward on the floor, and
ille CHIZIP JUSTICE asked her if she had Any thing to

urge why the Rule should not be made absolute?—
She made no reply to his Lordship's question, and
was apparently overcome by her agitation.
Mr. MILLs, of Bristol, now well-known by his fre-1
quent appearance in the Courts of Law, appeared to
be her adviser, and by his direction she handed in some
papers to Mr. Dealtry, which were read. One of them
objected to the ftule being made absolute, on the
ground of an irregularity in it ; and further, that her
person was not described with sufficient accuracy.
Mr. GURNEY said, service had been made per-
sonally on Mrs. Carlile. It might also be right to
state, that since be applied for the criminal informa-
tion four other Numbers of the work had been pub-
lished.

Mrs. Carlile then requested that the other paper,
might be read, which was in the form of an Address
to the Court ; and in it she contended, that the Rule
could not be made absolute, since it was no offence
to publish a fair and correct report of what passed
in a Court of Justice. She had an authority for this
opinion in the case of Currie v. Walter, and.also in
the case of Daniel Isaac Eaton, whose trial was pub-
lished at length, and no objection taken. Her hus-
band, at his trial, read the whole of the Age of Reason
to prove to the Jury that there was nothing of an
immoral tendency in that publication. She bad so
high an opinion of her husband's principles, that she
confided entirely in his opinion; in fact, she consi-
dered it as a religious duty on her part to do so. She
was convinced her husband would, if desired, take a' I
responsibility on this occasion on himself, and give
his sanction to all she had done. For there reasons
she contended that the Rule against her ought to be
discharged.
Mr. GURNEY—The title to this publication, my
Lords, declares it not to be a fair r2pr.rt of what
passed in a Court of Justice: it is called The Mock
Trial. The defendant Carlile was indicted for sell-
ing Paine's Age ("Reason for 10s. 6d. Mrs. Carlile
is now selling it for 1 s. Gd.
The CHIEFJUSTICE said, no doubt could exist in the
mind of the Court on the question. If in the course
of a trial the ends of justice required that matter
defamatory and improper should be gone into, that af-
forded no justification of a republication of such mat-
ter. This had been decided in the case of the King
v. Creevy. Mr. Creevy made a speech in the House
of Commons defaming an individual; he afterwards
published that speech, and was prosecuted for it.
He pleaded privilege of Parliament. The Court
held that he was privileged to make the speech in
his place, as a Member of the House of Commons,
but for publishing it afterwards he was convicted and
punished by the Court. There was no doubt this
Rule must be made absolute. Whether this would,
prevent the parties from continuing the publication
or not, would be for them to consider. If they did
so, perhaps the parties who prosecuted the Rule would
, rotted no further ; but the defendant, if she still
pc. -rered, would discover, that ultimately she must
suhr it to the law.
M-; Justice BAYLEY .remembered the case of the
King v. Creevy, and the strong opinion laid down by
Lerd Ellenborough on that occasion, in which he
fully agreed. Proceedings in a Court of Justice
wou!I never authorise the republication of defania-
tors, )r immoral matter. In cases of adultery, for
asta,ice, would it be contended that persons were
justified in a republication of the disgusting matter
which, for the ends of justice, the Court and Jury
were frequently obliged to hear ? With respect to
the present publication, it should be known, that all
who uttered, by selling, lending, or giving away,
v.et e equally liable.
Mr. Justice HoLnovo agreed in the opinion laid
down by the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Bayley,
and adverted to the case of the King v. Lord Abing-
don, as an authority that even Peers of Parliament
welt: not authorised in republishing speeches which
contained defamatory matter.
Mr. Justice BEST also agreed In this opinion; but
in this case it was not necessary to advert to any of
tar authorities which had been cited. It was only
contended, as he understood, that it was legal to pub-
fair reports; now the present, on the face of
it, was not of that description. It described the trial
AS the Mock Trial. No man could say this was a
jai:- report, the first line of which was a gross libel
on the Court, whose proceedings it pretended to de-
scribe. No man could be justified in reporting that
which went to defame character, spread sedition, or
,:roy the morals of the Public. He trusted the
the Rule absolute, would stop the further
:b,ir-at;on ; and then, perhaps, as the object of those
sio trov:d for the information: would be obtained,
se, I:ether steps would be taken upon it.—gule made
itbs,lutv.