Star.
London, England, 1821-02-09 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, FEBRUARY 8.

[The business of this day was fully given in the latter part of
our impression yesterday. We repeat it for the information of
those of our Readers who received their Papers early].

THE KING V. SIR-FRANCIS BURDETT.

The Court having disposed of some other cases
--(sec STAR of yesterday)—the ATTORNEY-GEvs-
RAL moved for the judgment of the Court upon Sir
FRANCIS BURDETT.

The worthy Baronet had just entered the Court
accompanied by Mr. Ilonnotysz, M.P. Mr. Fvscuz
PALMER, M.P. Mr. BICKERSTETH, Sir ROBERT Hz-
RON, and several other friends.

Mr. SCARLETT put in two Affidavits; the first
from Sir Francis Burka, which set forth, that he
had beer. a Member of the Imperial Parliament for
twenty-four years, and had uniformly been an advo-
Lcate for a legal and Constitutional Reform, which he
openly avowed, and felt and believed to be essential to
the stability of the Throne, the vigour of the Govern-
ment, and the contentment and happiness of the People.
That his invariable object had always been to effect
that Reform by such means as would prevent the in-
terposition of popular excess of any kind. He had
always conceived that the right of Petition was a
right sacredly recognized by the Constitution, and in
the exercise of which the People had a right to pro-
tection, and not molestation. The Affidavit further
stated, that the Honourable Baronet, when he heard
of the fatal affair at Manchester, felt it to be a daring
military outrage, directly attacking the right of Pe-
tition, and one which urged him to call upon his
constituents to come forward and protest against
such an outrage.
Mr. James llarmer's affidavit stated, that he had
searched the files of all the public Newspapers, and
the first statement that he had found of any appro-
bation expressed by his Majesty's Government of
the proceedings at Manchester, was published in
the Star and Courier Newspapers, on the 25th of
August, 1819, in the shape of a letter from Viscount
Sidmouth to the Earl of Derby.
Mr. SCA RLETT, in a voice almost inaudible from
excess of emotion, addressed the Bench, in mitigation
of punishment, to the following effect:—" My Lords,
if it could in any case be permitted to an Advocate
in Court to intrude upon that Court the expression
of his private feelings, I should say, and say most
sincerely, that I could wish my duty to Sir Francis
Burdett had ceased before the present day. I have
hitherto laboured hard—l confess with hopes that
have not been realized—in behalf of my'client; in
so labouring I meant to do no more than was my
duty ; but, if an address in mitigation ef punishment
be a task of difficulty to every advocate, what must
not be my feelings in the present case, when I look
at the individual who stands before the Court, and
think of the occasion upon which he is placed there?
My Lords, I am not ashamed to avow that I take in
that individual a deep personal interest ; it is not be.
cause our political sentiments may have occasionally
differed, that my warm sense of his personal worth,
of his high importance, and value to his country, in
the least degree can stand diminished. While I am
sure there ts not an enemy of that individual—if ever
be had an enemy—who will charge him with want
of moral good faith, of nice honour, or of incor-
ruptible integrity ; equally may I assert that no friend,
by political controversy, bas ever been alienated from
him : he stands before your Lordships, as to all -the
virtues of private life, not only free from exception,
but the object of esteem and of admiration. My
Lords, when I look at the public character, which,
for twenty-five years, the defendant has held in the
eye of his country ; when I look at his course of con-
duct, sometimes perhaps displeasing to party preju-
dice, but always open, candid, and avowed; when I
look at his high birth, his splendid fortune, his dis-
tinguished talents, his finished education ; when: I see
him first in the ranks of the first gentlemen in Eng-
land, discharging the duties cast upon him by his
eminent station—discharging them in a manner
which must make the history of his life a part, and
not a trifling part, of the history of his country ; when
I advert to those facts, I do advert to them in the
perfect confidence that impartial history, in time to
come, will review any judgment of his motives and
of his conduct, which may hastily be uttered at the
present day—uttered, perhaps, under the bias of
party prejudice, er founded in feelings of political'
animosity ; and I do persuade myself that your
Lordships have never been called upon for a penal
judgment against an individual more illustrious
or more dear to his fellow-subjects. Sir Francis Bur-
dett, upon his oath, has stated to. the Court his at-
tachment (an attachment which he has ever professed)
to the laws and to the Constitution ; and by placing
me in my present situation, a situation of difficulty,
but a situation which I could not refuse, he has pre-
chided himself from the possibility of uttering one
word—for in a personal address words of hasty feel-
ing sometimes may occur—he has provided against
the risk of uttering one word in breach of that re-
spect which he knows to be due from every good
citizen to the tribunals of his country : by placing
me, my Lords, in my present situation—me, an in-
dividual bound by duty, by interest, and by habit, to
support the dignity of law and of authority—the de-
fendant inculcates reverence for thelaws, and enforces
his principle not only by precept but by example.—
My Lords, it is impossible to say that the Honourable
Gentleman whom I here represent has ever stood in
opposition to those laws. The ardent wish of his heart
has been that his countrymen should be governed by
the law, and that they should not be governed by the
sword ; his constant cry has been,' Defend your laws,
and with your laws your rights; those laws and rights,
my Lords, which arc our sole defence against the ap-
proach of that military despotism which has been
predicted—and may HEAVER avert the prediction
from being fulfilled!--which has been predicted as
the enthanasia of the British Constitution. Passing.
my Lords, from one part of the country to another,

Sir Francis Burdett was met by reports of terror and
of alarm, and by statements in the Newspapers, such•
as—and to the end of my life, I will maintain it—
such as the being who did not feel must be either
more or less than man ; such as your Lordships, who,
though, you are Judges, must, by the law of nature,
still continue to be men, would, I am sure, have felt;
such as could not fail to produce in the heart and
mind of every Englishman, disgust and horror, not
I unmixed with indignation. Sir Francis Burdett, in
the expression of his sentiments upon the matter of
those dreadful statements, upon a subject which he
took to be of even vital moment to his country, has
been betrayed into the employment of certain un-
guarded terms ; and therefore it is that he now awaits
the judgment of this Court. I do not stand here, my
Lords, to justify those terms ; I do not stand here to
defend them • but I am bound to say, that there is
nothing in them derogatory to the Gentleman who
stands before you. II my client, submitting with
revereacer to the judgment of the Court upon the
quality and character of his expressions, makes against
its sentence no complaint, still he thinks himself jus-
tified in appealing to your Lordships, as men, and as
Gentlemen, whether the motives to which he has this
day sworn before the Court—an oath which no one
I am sure will think of disputing—whether there is
anything in the spirit of those motives which an ho-
nest man and an Englishman need hesitate to avow ?
For me, whatever may be my private feelings as to
thii proceeding ; however, as against the defendant,
I may personally lament it; whatever may be my
opinion as to the justice, the expediency, or the po-
licy, under all the circumstances, of bringing Sir
Francis Burdett up for judgment, and re-exciting and
re-animating that public feeling, perhaps not yet en-
tirely subsided ; whatever, my Lords, I may, indivi-
dually, think of the present measure, the Learned
Attorney-General is at least entitled to this concession
at my hands—l believe he is doing that which he be-
lieves to be his duty. It remains, my Lords, for you
to discharge your duty—a duty which invests you
with a discretion as important as ever was commit-
ted to the hands of Judges ; a duty in which it be-
hoves you to weigh, on the one side, what were the
motives and interests of the Honourable Defendant ;
on the other, what it is that public justice demands.
With respect to the letter which Sir Francis Burdett
has written, it should be observed that it expresses
no opinion, much less calls for any approbation, of
the conduct of those by whom the Meeting at Man-
chester was assembled ; it does not ask whether the
unfortunate persons who are now suffering the sen-
tence of the law had or had not assembled such a
Meeting as the law ought to put down ? It merely
asks, whether the mode by which it was put down
be such ak, without inquiry, remonstrances, or ex-
planation, ought to be submitted to by the Gentle-
men of England? The letter is a letter written by. a
Member of Parliament to his constituents; its object
was a Meeting to petition for redress; Meetings for
such purposes will not be discountenanced by the
Court ; ner will your Lordships weigh, I trust, in
scales of too much nicety, the expressions which a
Gentleman, under such circumstances, employs; your
Lordships will impute no motives to him but such
as would be natural for an Englishman to feel ; nor
will you be satisfied that any other should impute
such motives. The letter in question, my Lords, may,
as it appears to me, be divided into two parts. The
writer calls the attention of his constituents to an at-
tempt made to disperse, by military force, an un-
armed and inoffensive Meeting ; and he also makes
some allusions to Parliamentary Reform. However,
upon the latter subject, the opinions of Sir Francis
Burdett may be opposed to those entertained by the
Court, yet, when your Lordships call to mind the
numerous and illustrious individuals by whom the
cause of Parliamentary Reform has been advocated,
then, even although you should consider Parliamen-
tary Reform as the most visionary, nay the most
dangerous, object in the world, you will still believe
that men of honour and integrity may entertain a
very different feeling. With regard to the other
point, the putting down, .by military force, a popu-
lar opinion, Sir Francis, my Lords, was not afraid in
his letter to declare, that which he now, by his Advo-
cate, repeats ;—that military force, to support the au-
thority of Government, was but a frail thing to de-
pend upon. My Lords, Sir Francis, in support of his
principle, pointed out an example in the reign of
James ll.—and recent events in other countries have
shewn that his principle is not founded in error. Sir
Francis Burdett did think, that the employment of
armed soldiers to keep the peace was an unconstitu-
tional and an imprudent course ; he thought that the
employment of a military force must, upon every oc-
casion, be attended with excitement, and followed by
opposition ; he thought that, in the Manchester case,
it had produced effects of which, perhaps, the coun-
try has not yet arrived at the conclusion ; and he de-
clared that the Government which relied upon mili-
tary support, leaned upon a frail and broken reed.
My Lords, Sir Francis Burdett, hearing of the trans-
actions of the 16th of August, thought it his duty to
chew to the people of England, that they needed not
to resort to brute force for the redress of their griev-
ance; he thought it sound policy to point out to the
survivors of that unfortunate day, that violence was
not necessary to procure them justice, but that men
cf rank, ability, and character, would demand and
obtain for them such justice from the law, He 1: ad
no intention to excite tumult and sedition in his cam-
try ; he could have no such intention ; and the man
who could put that interpretation upon his expressions
—warm as they, are—must have a mind and a feel-
-1 ing into which I cannot enter. Sir Francis Burdett
I looked at all the circumstances, and called upon the
Gentlemen of England to come forward and petition
I for a redress of the intolerable grievance with which
the public had been visited. Such a course has been
:•deelared legal by the Bill of Rights ; it has been re-
cognized by the first authorities that England ever
produced.; and I trust I shall never hear it assumed

PRI ESE EN - PENCE.

' in a British Court of Justice, that, because a man
has called upon the people to petition, he has there-
fore sought to lead them into tumult and sedition.--s.
My Lords,l submit that the interference of my client
under the circumstances was not only justifiable, but
laudable. When it was asked of the Athenian Philo-
sopher—what was the best form of government ? the
answer was, 4 that in which every individual is ready
to resent the wrong done to another, as though that
wrong had been his own. In other words, my
Lords, that is the best form of government in
which public interest overpowers private feeling ;
and that is the state of the English Government
at the present moment; for not an individual, how-
ever obscure, can be trampled or., but some other is
found coming forward to demand justice for him.
Such conduct is often misunderstood; men in power
too frequently mistake the only real support of Go-
vernment, and treat it as an enemy threatening their
authority. I do not impute blame to their mistake;
but they are mistaken : so long as the Gentlemen of
;England shall consider wrong to an individual as
wrung to themielves, so long, depend upon it, the
GOvernment of England is secure; but when the time
shall come—if such time ever should come—when
outrages like those of Manchester shall (pass un-
heeded by persons of rank and consideration in the
country, then I shall fear that the day of liberty is
closing fast upon us ; that the hour is almost come
when we shall no longer rely Upon the attachment of
the People;—when we must govern by the sword,
and the sword alone. My Lords, the letter of Sir
F. Burdett was written upon the impulse of the mo-
ment ; it was written at a time when he could noto
by possibility, be aware that the act impugned had
been ratified by Government; but I must do the
Honourable Baronet the justice to say that, although
he wrote in ignorance that Government had ap-
, proved of the Manchester transactions, yet he does
not think that the approbation of Government, ex-
pressed as that approbation was, altered the nature
of the question one jot, nor would the knowledge
of that approbation, liad he possessed it, have varied
in any point the form or feeling of his letter.—
, Be that, however, as it may, the defendant wrote upon
certain statements contained in the newspapers; from
that hour to the present, no authorized publication
has ever contradicted the facts asserted in those Pa-
pers; and therefore, although Government, no doubt,
has had good reason fur knowing that the King's
thanks ought to be applied in the way in which they
have been applied, yet that knowledge can in no way
bear upon the letter of the defendant, because that
letter was written before the thanks were bestoWed,
at a time that the writer was not aware that Govern-
ment was connected with the act, and when he did
not know but that some military officer, without au-
thority or previous instruction, had poured in his
armed men upon the defenceless and unresisting mul-
titude, so causing all the blood and slaughter that
ensued. My Lords, I will not ascribe to the Learned
Attorney-General anything like personal feeling upon
this subject. Even if personal feeling did exist, I am
sure that anything which Sir Francis Burdett has
stated upon oath, the Learned Attorney-General will
admit ; and we may therefore take the motives of my
client upon his own declaration. I do not, after what
has passed, presume to justify the expressiOns in the
defendant's letter; but of the purity of his motives,
my Lords, you cannot doubt. He wrote under the
impression of the moment; he transmitted his letter
to a -Gentleman in the profession of the law—.
Mr. Justice BATLEY did not think that that fact ap-
peared upon the affidavits. Mr. Justice BRET said,
that the fact of Mr. Bickersteth being in the profession
of the law was stated at the trial.
Mr. SCARLETT.—" My Lords, I do not mean to
say that my client transmitted his letter to I:Jr. Bick-
ersteth for the advantage of that Gentleman's opi-
nion ; but certainly, in so sending it, he did leave it
to the judgment of an impartial individual; whether
or not he was acting in a manner consistent with his
rank and character. And, for my own part, my
Lords, perhaps if the letter had come to my hand's. a
fortnight after its publication, I might have said, let
us alter an expression or two; but if it had been pre-
sented to me at the time when it was written, I Hill
not say that I should have weighed very nicely the
words which were made tre of upon a subject so im-
portant. My LOrds, I have already protested against
my client's being mixed up with the persons by whom.
the Meeting at Manchester was called. If I were
permitted to advert to that which is now matter of
history, I should say that, at Westminster, those per-
sons were virulent opponents of the Hon. Defendant.
But let the conduct of those persons have been as mis-
chievous as it may, still the question with Sir Francis
Burdett was the same—was that employment of an
armed force spoken of by Newspapers, commonly in
contradiction, but concurring upon that point—was
that act, such an act at. the People of England ought
silently to submit to ? My Lords, the employment
of that military-force, if not now sub judice, may
come into that situation. My client does not mean
to say that there may not have been grounds to jus- .
tify the proceeding ; all he says is, what I have said
before—that, up to this time, no such grounds have
ever been stated. Failing those grounds, my Lords,
Sir Francis Burdett cannot disavow the feelings ex-
pressed in his letter, nor the object %%hid] he had in
view. That object was, to cause the People of Eng-
land to meet, .not fur the purpose of taking the re-
medy into their own hands—but for the purpose of
requesting that inquiry and that justice w !rich should
prevent aggrieved persons from resorting, in despe-
ration, to acts of violence—which should prevent
the friends and relatives of the injured from foster-
ing a lasting and a deep vindictive feeling. My
Lords, if the day shall ever come ihat shall see a
Gentleman of England receive judgment in a Court
of Justice for the prosecution of such objects, in
that day will the glory of England be gone.--
Your Lordships, thank HEAVEN, arc not to punish
the defendant fur the entertainment of those objects;

but for the expression which he has chanced to use,
in endeavouring their attainment ; and I am sure
your Lordships will not think it necessary, in such a
case, to mark your judgment with a vindictive cha-
racter. My Lords, the judgment of the Court will cast
no ignominy upon Sir Francis Burdett ; it is not
meant to cast ignominy upon him :—I may say it
cannot cast ignominy upon him ; it will not convict
him of entertaining any objects inconsistent with the
habits of his life, or with the welfare of his country.
My Lords, in one uniform course of conduct Sir
F. aacis Burdett has lived ; he has steadfastly main-
tai:ied certain princirt!es, and he is now too old to
reform ; he bows implicitly to the judgment of the
Court upon the terms of his letter ; to the last mo-
ment of his life he will maintain the sentiments
which it expresses. My Lords, the painful duty
which it has been my lot to perform is almost at an'
end. I know your Lordships will look at the ques-
tion with that candour that belongs to you. I feel
that, however you may punish my client's expres-
siJas, you will acquit him upon his motives. I know
that you will feel, as the defendant has felt, that in
those motives and intentions there is not anything
unbecoming the character of an honest man, and of
an English Gentleman."
Mr. SCAIMETT then sat down. During the whole
of his speech the most profound silence was observed.
lie delivered it with a feeling and impressiveness
which was calculated to produce, and did produce,
the most powerful effect.
Mr. DENMAN folowed on the same side, and jus-
.Cfied the indignation which the defendant had ex-
pressed, by a reerence to the narrative of the transac-
tion, as published in the Newspapers at the time. He I
was satisfied, that as the persons concerned in that
outrage had not been eiposed to a trial before a pre-
judiced Jury, their Lordships would not sentence the
individual to a severe punishment for expressing those
feelings too warmly, which it would he a libel on
their Lordships to suppose they did not share in com-
mon with him.

Mr. Plitturs, Mr. BLACKBURN, and Mr. EvANs,
each briefly addressed the Court on the same side.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL rose and said, that if it
were possible he could indulge any personal feeling
towards the defendant on the floor, some temptation
was afforded him by the speeches of the Learned
Counsel who had addressed the Court. But his
Learned Friend (Mr. Scarlett) who had addressed
the Court with so much feeling and discretion, had
done him no mute than justice in acquitting him of.
any such sentiments. The Learned Counsel pro-
ceeded to argue, that the innocency of the defendants
motives was no apology for the improper nature of
the language. The language, he contended, had an
effect different from the motive now given to it by
the defendant's affidavit. That was an offence for
which he now, in the exercise of his duty, called for
such judgment as the Court thought it merited.
The SOLZCLTOR-GENERAL said, the case had been
so fully brought before their Lordships, that he
would not occupy the time of the Court with any
observations upon'it.
Their Lordships consulted together for about
twenty minutes, during which time Sir FRANCIS
BURDETT (having risen from the place which he had
occupied on the Attorney's Bench) stood on the
floor of the Court.

Mr. Justice BAYLEY then rose, and proceeded to
pronounce the sentence of the Court. His Lordship
said, that it was impossible the Court could proceed
to pronounce judgment on a case which had occupied
so much of their attention, without a close and careful
review of all the circumstances connected therewith.
—ln looking at this libel, it was but reasonable
that the Court should lean to the recommendation
of the defendant's Counsel, and pause to consider
of the motive of the Honourable Defendant. It was
true, indeed, that a difference of opinion took place in ,
Court respecting the proof of the publication of the
libel in Leicestershire; but then it must at once be
seen, that had a new trial been granted in Leicester,
it would have . availed little to the defendant, for
the proof required might at once have been supplied.
As to the motive of the Honourable Defendant,.who
had the candour at once to avow his being the au-
thor of the libel, the Court had looked into the de-
fendant's aitdavit of this day, in which he states that
he had no intention of exciting the people against
the Government, but that his only desire was to call
his Coastituents together to assert their right of Peti-
tion upon an occurrence which he believed to be a
violent and dangerous infraction of their rights.—
The ,tive of course was an important consideration
for the Court; where it appeared obviously bad, it was
a high aggravation of the offence; but where, though
not bad, the inl?oence of exercising it was yet perni-
cious, a party, whatever were his motives, must be held
by law as responsible for the consequences of his acts.
It must be allowed, that this Letter was written at a
moment of great excitement; and it was obvious that
that Letter, coming from a man of such rank and
character, must greatly add to that excitement. True
it was, that the Letter was written (as indeed from its
style is apparent) in great haste, and under the in-
fluence of highly excited feelings. The Honour-
able Defendant had just (as he himself had stated)
read in some Newspapers a statement, which repre-
sented that men, women, and children, peaceably as-
sembled, had been cut down by an armed force, in
cold blood. GOD forbid, that in this country any
man should read such a statement as this with.
out horror and indignation. But the Honourable
defendant should have recollected, that he had
no right to assume the facts to have been so from
a statement in a Newspaper. He should also
have known, that the crime which had excited his
indignation was the highest known to the laws,
and the proof of which would reach to the life of the
party or parties committing it. The Hon. Baronet
should, therefore, have borne in mind, on so impor-
tant and solemn an occasion, that the law secured for
every man, whatever were his crime, a cool and im-
pat :aid trial ; and that to excite the public mind while
yet the party was open to the tribunals of the law, was
to disseminate a prejudice from which it was the espe-
cial object of the law to protect every individual.
The Hon. Baronet had also assumed, without the
smallest proof, that the Government was a premedi-
tating party; to the outrage on which he had made
so strong a comment. It was for these reasons that
the Court looked upon the publication of the Hon.
Baronet's letter as a libel, and, in its collective capa•
city, pronounced upon him for the said offence,

-•,
the fqllowing sentence, •which was—ll That Sirl
FRANCIS BURDE7'r do pay to the.. King a fine of Two
Tkeusand Pounds; and that he be imprisoned in the
King's Bench fur the space of three jiill Months.
The worthy Baronet made a low bow to the Court,
and the announcement of the sentence was received
(no doubt from its comparative mildness) with loud
demonstrations of applause, which called forth the
reprehension of the Court.
The Ilonourable Baronet was congratulated by his
friends who were in Court, among whom, in addi-
tion to the names we have before mentioned, were,
Mr. LAMBTON, Sir ROBERT WILSON, Mr. BENNETt,
and other Members of Parliament. On a back seat,
behind the Counsel, was seated Mr. FIOLIAS SLOINIER.
The sentence was received without the walls of the
Court by acclamations from an immense concourse
of the people.—Sir FRANCIS soon after got into a
hackney-coach, accompanied by Mr. HOBIIOUSE, and
prOceeded to the King's Bench l'i ison.
Apartments had been for some days prepared for
the reception of the worthy Baronet.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS.

HOUSE OF LORDS, FEBRUARY a.

The Earl of ROSSLYN presented a Petition from theTnhabit-
ant Householder-3 of the City of Edinburgh. It was signed by
no less than 10,500 persons, and every possible care was taken,
that in order to make it as unobjectionable as possible, none
who were not inhabitant householders of Edinburgh, should
put their names to k; and that none of these should be under
eighteen years of age. Ile believed that no Petirim ever had a
more respectable set of signatures, nor was there ever one that
ottgre fully and generally spoke the sense of a body of people,
who were as intelligent, as enlightened, as well informed, and as
capable of acting, on all occasions, conformably with the princi-
ples of the Constitution, as any other set of men in the king-
dom. The Petitioners prayed that the queen's name might be
restored to the Liturgy, and that ber Maje;,T. y might be rein-
stated in all her lawful and just rights.—The au( ir was read;
and ordered to lit on the table.—The Noble Erri nest presented
a Petition from the Isicarporated Weavers of Eas: and West
Anstruther, in th.t County of Edinburgh ; and another front the
Inhabitants of 1 Lrinye, in Ayrshire, to the sane eifect.—Ordered
to lie on thetabie.