Star.
London, England, 1821-02-13 00:00:00

PRI E Sr.‘ EN-PCNCE.

however, mention one Or two facts which were not
(for all the facts could not be detailed in Court) al-
ready known. The Meeting had heard of Pitt Clubs
--(Yes, and laughter).—that great Statesman, as he
was called, had Left in this country a 'number of ad-
mirers, who were, associated together in Clubs, for
the purpose of preserving his memory and his princi-
ples. Now, the Jury by which the Honourable Baa
'ronet was tried (all honourable men, no doubt)—
(Hear, and /aughtir)—was entirely—or, at lerst with -
the exception of three or four—composed of members
of a Pitt Club ; so that their Representative was tried
by a Pitt Club Jury, for an offence against Mr.
Pitt's principles—(Hear, hear, and much laughter).--
He had the greatest respect for Juries, and no doubt
so had the Gentlemen whom he addressed; but that
was not for special Juries or packed Juries. • His re%
spect was for Juries, such as they ought to be, and at
the Act described them, ,4 indifferent." It should
not be forgotten, that it was by the verdict of a Jury
that Lord Russell and Sidney lost their heads—that,
by thedverdicts of Juries, many things were esta-
blished which the wisdom of after ages had over•
thrown—ahat, by the verdict of a Jury, the man was
convicted who said it was a shame to see English
, peasants flogged by Dutch troops—and that, by the
verdict of a Jury, the persons who had assembled a
large Meeting for the purpose of petitioning for a
full and fair Representation of the People in Parlia-
ment, were convicted of holding an illegal Meeting.,
Indeed, there were many verdicts of Juries front
which, with every respect for their general utility, he
should dissent. At all events, he was sure that the
greatest admirer of Juries (and, properly constituted,
they were admirable) would not look to a Pitt Club
for the members who were to compose it—(Cheers),
But Sir Francis Burdett had been found guilty of a
libel in Leicestershire, where he had published no-
thing. The matter, as they all knew, was subsea
quently brought into Westminster Hall. He would
not speak with any disrespect of the Judges ; he did
not know but it might be his turn to come next be-
fore them, but he could not give his assent to the
doctrines he had heard laid down with respect to
libel. The Honourable Member here commented at
some length and with great ability on the inconsis-
tency of the opinions of Judges upon the subject of
the law of libel, and upon the injustice and absur-
dity of the doctrine, that the truth of any alleged libel
ought not to be received in proof. The only criterion
now was—in ourhappy times was—whether any mat-
ter was or was not pleasing to his Majesty's Attor-
ney-General ? and perhaps so much the worse for the
individual-accused, if it were true. Did any mart
now doubt the Manchester massacre ? The Honour-
able Baronet (Sir F. Burdett) had offered no fewer
than one hundred and nineteen affidavits of persons
who were assaulted and wounded at Manchester; but
they were not allowed to be read; and they were
looked upon in that case as not weighing a feather in
the scale. But whatever might have been the opi-
nions of the Jury, or of the Judges, he IMr. Hob-
h inse) could now assure that Meeting and the Peo-
ple of England, that his Honourable Friend (Sir
Francis Burdett) never had regretted, and he was
convinced he never would regret as long as he
liv.ed, having written that letter, but that he would
write it ten thousand times over again, did a si-
milar occasion call for it!—(hnniense
It was a natural ground of complaint with the Peo-
ple, that there was no law by which the People could
know what was or was not libel. The decisions of
Judges were all inconsistent with each other, and
with themselves, on this point. He should mention
one case of Judge Scrogs, who held not only that it
was a libel to say anything against the Government,
but that it was a libel to praise the Government with•
out its consent! For the latter species of offence, he.
believed there were few in the present day who ran •
any chance erbeiog punished —(Henr, an d laughter).
On another occasion, it was held that a man was
guilty of a libel on a public officer, because he had
applied to him the words " hurnanum est errare r--
that human nature was liable to err I—and therefore
that it was possible for this public officer to err. But
in the ancient practiCe of the law, it was customary
to make the falsehood of any matte, alleged as libel-
lous the ground of punishment, and there were two
Statutes, one of Edward I. and another of Richard IL
which recognized this principle. He trusted that
this subject would be made a matter of Parliamen-
tary consideration; and if no other Member should
introduce it, he certainly would—(Cheers). It was
well observed by Dean Swift, " it was strange that a
man should be called on to answer in a Court olJus-
tice, for what he could not be called to answer for in
Heaven." He was a Clergyman, but hat of the same
cloth of too many of the present day. If truth were
not allowed to be told, how was it possible that the
grievances of the People should ever reach the ear
of the Sovereign? He could not know the senti-
ments of his People from packed Parliaments or
packed Play-houses—(Cheers)—and, in consequence,
his Ministers might continue to go on from error to
error, until the ruin of the country was effected: By
!I nosy this doctrine of the Law of Libel, as it was no ad-
ministered, there was an end to freedom of public
writing. It was in the power of the Attorney-Gene-
ral to call what he pleased a libel; and what one At-
, tornerGeneral might think a crime, another might
deem a vii tue. The great Lord Cuniden said, that
we owe to libel the great blessing of the lievolu-
' tion ;" and if the expression of public opinion was to
Le considered a libel now, where were we to kink for
redress of our giievances? The present, lie con-
ceived, was a proper opportunity for the People to
come forward, .and express their opinions upon this
mischtevous law.. It was their duty to con.. for-
ward,
and state that they considered no disgrace at-
tached to their worthy Representative in con,equ, nee
of his suffering for „hat was called a .
them (said the Honourable Gentlemai.) n w ,nets to
this country and to the world, by their suppoi f
their most able and iiarepid defender, the iac;, ttiat
when the names cf some individuals should be, tor-