Star.
London, England, 1819-11-18 00:00:00

. • •
had acquitted for the same offence. His Lordship
then adverted to, and regretted the delay which had
occurred in bringing the defendant to trial—a cir-
cumstance which he had no doubt. had occasioned
him considerable trouble and expense. He lamented
extremely that the Gentlemen in Warwickshire, who
had been summoned to attend as Special Jurors, had
neglected to do so, for he conceived that that duty
was one of the charges upon Property which ought
to be enforced.
Mr. DENMAN here addressed the Court, and hav-
ing apologised for interrupting his Lordship at such
a moment, begged to observe, that the trial was not
delayed in the first instance by the non-attendance of
the Special Jury ; but the record had been withdrawn
before it came into Court.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY continued.—Then, if so, the
observations he had made would not apply to that
case, and he knew of no other ; but in any case of its
occurrence, he should have felt it his duty to have
made the same or a similar remark. With respect
to the losses and trouble which the defendant had
been put to, and the circumstance of his having
children dependent upon him, the Court felt and re-
gretted it; and it would perhaps be a useful lesson to
persons in the situation of the defendant, to make
their children a surety for their good behaviour. His
Lordship then observed, that the Court were particu-
larly inclined to treat the defendant in the most
lenient manner, but it was to his own conduct, in
having republished part of the Parody, with the pre-
fatory Dedication, that he should owe whatever he
should now suffer. The recommendation of the
Jury, taken with the other circurnstarces which had
been urged by the defendant, had certainly great ,1
weight, but that was in a great measure lessened by
his subsequent conduct. The libel was a gross one,
and it was the duty of the Court to protect the Pub-
lic from the effects of such writings by punishing
those who gave them publication. The sentence of.
the Court was, that the defesilant he imprisoned six
months in the Jail of Warwick, and that at the end of
that time he give security, himself in the sum of
cm), and two others in the sum of £lO each, that he
keep the peace for three years; and that he be fur-
ther imprisoned until such security is given.
Mr. WALTON, who had moved, on a former day,
that the defendant be b:ought up to plead to another
indictment for a libel, now asked whether the defen-
dant should not be called upon to give bail to that
indictment?

The LORD Cutzr JUSTICE said, that the defendant
might now enter into a recognizance himself in £lOO,
and that at NVarwick, where it might he more con-
venient for him, he might, at the expiration of his
sentence, get two persons in £5O each, to appear to
the indictment when called upon. his Lordship ad-
ded, that lie could not avoid, on this occassion, ex-
pressing his regret that the defendant should have,
by his subsequent conduct, obliged the Court, in
some degree, to neglect the merciful recommenda-
tion of the Jury, which they were most anxious to
attend to. The defendant, however, had only to
blame himself, though, as it was, the Court had, in
their sentence, taken the recommendation int' con-
sideration.

The Clerk was then about to take the recognizance
of the defendant to appear to the other indictment,
and had read in the usual form, " You acknowledge
to be indebted"--when,

The Defendant, interruptirg him in rather -a de-
sponding tone, said—" I acknowledge nothing : I am
imprisoned for life !"
He was then removed from Court in the custody
of the proper officer.