Star.
London, England, 1820-03-24 00:00:00

r7.4;tance. Air. Hunt made no effort to promote resistance,
qt ite tite contrary ; all his recommendations were pacific. He
did not think there was any hissing or hooting at the military--.
the people scLin•Nl quite orderly; but there might have been
hiising without his observing the circumstance.
In answer to criestions from the Learned Judge, he said he
suv nothing done by the persons engaged in the Meeting to pro-
d-tee distuitaatice. At the hooting and hiising at the Police Of-
fize, Mr. hunt and Mr. Johnson did not interfere. The hissing
in that spot did not last lung. The carriage in which Mr. Hunt
%v c, appeared to have the horses led; thy certainty gave no
orders to stop the It noes when before the Police Office. Mr.
i hint was coatiou,illy, and very earnestly, exhorting the multi-
tude to v.:man: quiet ; after the appearance of the military, he
c.r rested Ilacnt not to rnisr, and begged that if they wanted to
hi:n they be permitted. He said this as the military
advanced to the hu.sting.:. He thought that Mr. Johnson did
out his L.l:id to prevent the hissing at the Police Wire and
h. St.s, but not :o.vear positiv,l7
At hiVi-itst !dyc o'clock, adlourntil till to-morrow.
`•everai witnesses remaie still to be examincd. The Trial is
at.% expected to terininlnte 'oeforr Saturday or Monday next.

TRIAL OF SIR FRANCIS BURDETT.

T.EICESTER, THURSDAY, MARCH 23.

This long expected and itnpo!lant case came on to
be tried this day, before Mr. Justice 13cst and a Spe-
cial Jury. File Court was immensely crowded.
Eve: y vacant place en the Bench was filled with
persons of di ai::ction of the county, among whom
were Lord DE.:nron, Lady PALK, Lady ELIZA BE I II
NORMAN, I..ady NoEL, the mother of Lady BYRON,
and numerous other persons of rank, t.:ge,her with
most of the Magistrates of the County.
About a quarter past nine o'clock, loud huzzas on
the part of the populace outside the Court announced
the approach of Sir FRANCIS BURDETT; and in a few
minutes after the Baronet entered the Court, accom-
panied by a friend, and took his seat at the Barristers'
table, nearly under the Bench.
_ _

Mr. Justice BEST having taken his seat on the
Bench, the following Gentlemen were chosen as the

Edward Farnham, of Quorndon, Esq.
Henry Gretn, of Rualston, Esq.
Thomas Wright, of Lubbciihain, Esq.
John Ilrycock, of Cros,ton, Esq.
Henry D. Colenia;i, of Cidley, Esq.
Valentine Gretn, of Normanton Heath, Esq.
Frederick NVilliarti Wollaston, of Shanton, kisq.
Chzinctit Whistanley, of Branston, Esq.
F:-.incri Forrester, of Sornerby, Esq.
Julia Adams, of Lodingstone, Esq.
James Pickering Ord, of West Lambton, Esq.
Jchu Goodacre, of Ullesthorpe, Esq.

Mr. BALGUY opened the case to the Jury. He
said this was an Information filed by the ArronNEY-
ENLRA L an•rainst Sir FRANCIS BURDETT, for a Libel
against his SIAJCSTY'S Government.

I'he Information set forth, that Sir Francis Burdett, late of
V.-ettninster, in the County of Middlesex, Bart. being a sccliti-
uLs, n.alicious, and ill-disposed person, and unlawfully and mali-
ciously devising and intending to raise and excite discontent, dis-
affection, and sedition, among the liege subjects of our Lord the
King, and particularly among the soldiers of our said Lord
the King; and to move and excite the liege subjects of our said
Lord the King to hatted and dislike of the Government of this
Leann ; and to insinuate, and cause it to he believed, that divers
of tl.e subjects of our said Lord the King had been inhumanly
cat down, manned, and killed, by certain troops of our said Lord
itee King. The Information then went on to state, that the said
Sir Francis 13urtiLtt, Bart. did, on the £2d day of August last, at
LaJghborough, in the County of Leicester. unlawfully and ma-
liciousiy compose and write and publish, and cause to be coin-
pt.std, writt,:n, and published, a certain scandalous, malicious,
and seditious libel of and concerning the Government, and the
troops of our said Lord the King.

Mr. Serjeant VAUGIIAN said, that he rose in obe-1
dience to the duty which devolved upon him as Coun-
sel fur the Crown, to address the Court and the Jury
upon the information which had just been read—an
information filed by his Majesty's Attorney. General
against the defendant, Sir Francis Burdett. When
lie considered the nature of the indictment, it was
not matter of surprise that this trial should create so
much interest. The Law Officers of the Crown had
thought fit to bring to trial a Gentleman of ancient
family, of large fortune, of extraordinary talents, who
for many years had been the Representative, and was
now the favourite Candidate of the niost populous
City in the Empire, upon a charge of writing a scan-
dalous and malicious libel, with intent to excite odium
and indignation against the Government of the Coun-
try. If subtlety of argument, or extraordinary elo-
ciuence, were necessary to convince the Jury that the
leaer in question had such a tendency, he (Mr. Ser-1
'leant Vaughan) should regret that it had fallen to his
•int to state the nature of the indictment. Ile had
but one direct course to pursue, and the .lury but
one plain and easy, though serious, conclusion to ar-
rive at. He could not contemplate two plainer ques-
tions than those which twelve men were now called
upon to determine—first, whether the defendant, Sir
Francis Burdett, published the letter in question ?
and secondly, whether it was of that seditious nature
charged in the indictment? It was right and fair tt
take an accurate view of the charge. The infornta-
Can charged Sir Francis Burdett, being an ill-dis-
posed person, with publishing and writing a sedi-
tious and malicious libel, with intent to create
discontent, disaffection, and sedition against the
Governmeen and the soldiers in particular, by
causing it to be believed, that on a certain day
mentioned in that indictment, certain soldiers of
oer Lord the King did kill some of his Majesty's
subjects. To convict the defendant. the Jury must
be convinced that the publication had a tendency to
excite disaffection among the people in general, and
tleat it related to the soldiers and the Government.
When inquiring into the intention of a party, which
was, properly speaking, a question between man and
his CREATOR, it was uncharitable to say that we
ought to judge of the intention by the acts and de-
clai etion of the party. If, upon a clear view of the
case, it appeared that the letter in question had a
(direct tendency to excite what was charged in that
indictment, it was the duty of the Jury to decide
such was the intention of the party ; and on that ,
enound only they were )ustiaed, and ought, in the
'.Durst discharge of their duty, to find a verdict of
Guilty against the defendant, as every man was sup-
Penni to contemplate his own act, and must be an-
swei able for it. Now came the subject of the prose-
nnnien. It was a Letter addressed to the Electors of
Westminster, dated Kirby Hall, the ‘.,)2d of August,
819, r; dative to a Meeting which took place in Man-,
hester on the 16th of August, which was now a
eeestion trying in another county, and on w.hicli he
reel not, therefore, any wish to reii4e any collateral •
tenniiieous qeestinn. ills Lordship would tell the
July tier. the itueAiun to be inquired into was not
a!i ;het the Meeting dot the 16th August was, or was
eat :11. ? and he (Seijeant Vaughan) would take the
hl _rty it 44-q I no'., that no reasonable mail, fudging from

the facts admitted by all, could sly it wasnatiThiga
Though he would admit that the right of petitioning
Tor a redress of grievances was the birthright of an
Englishman=--a right, with
.which be would be the
last to interfere; yet it must be exercised as a right
compatible with the rights of the people at large;—
and if at any time it was thought neeessarT to impose
restrictious in the exercise of that right, it must be'
imputed to those who collected Meetings of such a
description its to make it dangerous to exercise that
right with safety to other rights equally dear and
valuable. As the right of property was the right of
the subject, no person had the power of calling a
Meeting which would inspire reasonable apprehen-
sions fir the safety of that propertv ; such a Meeting,
if too strong for the Civil Powt,r, 'he would say, was
illegal. But whether the Meeting was legal or ille-
gal, or whether the soldi..Ts did or did not commit,
excesses? was not the question. The sole question
for the Jury to try was, was this letter a libel against
the Government and the soldiers? if every fact
stated in that letter were true, yet it would be no
answer to the charge against the defendant.
The Learned Set jeant then read the following
letter, the subject of prosecution, and commented on
each sentence separately :

TO THE ELECTORS OF WESTMINSTER.
" GENTLENtEN—On readjg the Newspapers this morning, II
hiving arrived late yesterday evening, I was filled with shame, I
Of, and indignation, at the account of the blood spilled at
:11.tnchest•tr.
" This, then, is the answer of the Blroughmongers to the Pe-1
titionsng People—this is the proof of our standing in no need of
Refo:ni—these the practical blessings of cur glorious Borough-
niongrr s' domination—this the use of a Standing Army in time
of peace. It seems our fathers were not such fools as sonic
peopls would make us believe, in opposing the establishment of
a Sta iding Army, and sending King William's Dutch Guards
out of the country. Yet, would to HEAVEN, they had been
Dutchmen, or Switzers, or Hessians, or Hanoverians, or any-
thing, rather than Englishmen, who have done such deeds.—
What ! kill men unarmed, unresisting, and, gracious (;on ! wo-
men too ; disfigured, maimed, cut down, and trampled on by
Drag() nis! Is this England ? This a Christian land ? A land
of freelom ? Can such things be, and pass by us
like
a SUIII-
- r cloud, unheeded ? Forbid it every drop of English blood
in every vein, that does not proclaim its owner, bastard.
the Gentlemen of England support, or wink at such proceed-
ings ? They have a great static in their country : they hold
great estates, and they are boned, in duty and in honour to con-
sider them as retaining fees on the part of their country, for up-1,
holding its Rights and Liberties : surely they will at length
awake, and find they have duties to perform.
" They never can stand tamely by, as lookers on, whilst
bloody Neros rip open their mother's womb; they must join the
general voice, loudly demat.ding justice and redress; and head
Public Meetings throughout the United Kingdom, to put a step,
in fts commencement, to a reign of terror and of blood; to afford'
consolation as far as it can be afforded, and legal redress, to the
widows and orphans—mutilated victims of this unparalleled and
barbarous outrage.
" For this purpose, I propose tkat a Meeting should be called
in Westminster, which the Gentlemen of the Committee will
arrange, and whose summons I will hold myself in readiness to
attend. Whetcher the penalty of our meeting will be death by'
military execution, I know not ; but this I know, a man can
die but once, and never better than is vindicating the laws and
liberties of his country.
" Excuse this hasty address. I can scarcely tell whit I have
written ; it may be a libel, or the Attorney-General may call it
one, just as he pLases. When the seven Bishops were tried for
libel, the army of James IL then encamped en Hounslow
Heath, far supportiqg arbitrary power, gave three cheers on
hearing of their acquittal.
" The King, startled at the noise, asked, IVltsx's that ?'
Yothing, Sir,' was the answer, but the soldiers, shouting at
the acquittal of the seven Bishops." Do ye call that nothing?'
replied the misgiving tyrant; and shortly after abdicated the
Government.

' fis true, James could not inflict the torture on his soldiers—
could not tear the living flesh from their bones with the cat-o'-
nine-tails—could not gay them alive. By this as it may, our
duty is to meet ; and England expects every man to do his duty.'
" I remain, Gentlemen, most truly and faithfully,
" Your most obedient servant,
(Signed) " FRANCIS BURDETT."

In the first sentence, the writer said, he was filled
with shame, grief, and indignation, at the account of
the blood spilled at Manchester. What could be un-
derstood by that sentence, but that the Honourable
defendant was filled with grief for the sufferers, and
indignation against the authors ? He would put it
to the Jury to say, if Government were the authors;
was not this letter calculated to excite indignation
against Government in the minds of the readers. He
would leave it to the Jury to judge whether the de-
fendant did not feel, and wish to excite shame and in-
dignation against Government, whom he designated
Boroughmongers, for the part they had taken ? It
was possible he might misinterpret the sentences of
the letter; but he understood the Hon. Baronet in-
tended to defend himself, and ought, if his (Serjeant
Vaughan's) interpretation were wrong, opportunely
to tell them what was the right interpretation. He
imputed to Sir Francis Burdett, that he introduced
the Government as a set of lioroughmongers, who
were answerable for the blood spilt at Manchester ;
or, in other words, he said that the petitions of the
People were met by Governnsent with the sword.—
He charged the defendant with representing the Go-
vernment as a set of Boroughmongers, though, in
the strict sense of those words, it meant a set of great
Gentlemen, who carried on a traffic in boroughs, who
kept one branch of the legislative government in
subjection. When the defendant spoke of petition,
he must have meant a petition to the Houses of Lords
and Commons, which, he said, was answered by do-
mination, and by the sword ; and this fact he quoted
as
,a proof of the necessity of a practical Reform.
His letter next spoke of a standing army in time of
peace, which, he said, concurred with the sentiments
of the Boroughmongers, by which no man would
doubt he meant the Government. He imputed to
tae defendant the intention of exciting odium against
the Government, by saying they kept a standing
army in time of peace. He would allow, that by
the i3ill of Rights, a standing army, in time of peace,
could not be maintained by consent of Parliament—
that was of the people. He was not quarrelling with
the political jealousy which existed on that subject,
but with the odium intended to be thrown on Go-
vernment, by imputing that butchery at home, and
excesses which reflected disgrace on the name of
Enlish,-nen, were committed at Manchester, by part
of that army, and that that army which obtained
laurels abroad, was employed by Government at
home to butcher their fellow-citizens. He would
make this remark, that he thought their character
abroad fur bravery should be a shield against calumny
at home, because bravery and humanity, cowardice •
and cruelty, were inseparable. An interrogatory was
not an affirmative, but it was as strong in the letterof
the 1-Inn. Bart. a•Len he asks, " Is this England ?" &c.
He believed no man could doubt that the Hoa. de-
fendant meant to have it understood, that this land
was England degenerated, not Christian tinland, and
that tke sun of Britisi-, haerty wit:. set fur ever !

' Whett the Thin. defendant said, " Can -such things
pass by rex. had not such an expression a tendency
to make every•mari in the jury-box say, " it is too
much to 'bear. This expression tended to excite se-
dition, as charged in the information. The next sen-
tence, saying that " British Gentlemen could not
look at bloody Neros ripping their mothers' wombs,"
needed no comment. It might, perhaps, be difficult
to say who these blet6dy Neros were ; but the next
sentetiqe clearly pointed out the Government, be-
cause the people were called upon, by Meetings, to
" put a Stop to. the reign of terror and of blood," tak-
ing for t;ranted that such a reign was commenced. It
was impossible to say that the defendant did not al-
lude to the present reign, and if unlit he said were
true, if soldiers did commit murder, they ought to be
prosecuted; but no man had a right to come for-
ward, and, holding such an opinion, write down the
Army, but they ought to become the public accuser.
The sentence calling upon the Gentlemen of England
to hold Meetings for such a purpose was extremely
objectionable, and called most loudly for redress.—
In saying he (Sir Francis Burdett) did not know but
the consequence of meeting would be death by mili-
tary execution, he intimated that we lived under a
military government, and that the Government of
England would turn the army against the people
when legally met. The sentence, " a man cannot
die but once, &c." was equally seditious. He would
beg •the Jury to remark the deliberation with which
the Hon. Batt. wrote this letter, when he said he
knew not but it might be a libel, or, the Attorney-
general might call it one, The Leained Serje.rnt then
went into the history of the Seven Bishops, alluded
to in Sir Francis Burdett's letter, and said, there was
not a part of the English history which he more ad-
mired. It was material to observe that, and the ex-
pression of the Honourable defendant, " England
expects every man to do his duty." He charged the '
defenrlant with intimating, that if he were prose-
cuted for a libel, and acquitted, the soldiers would
be disaffected, and the Government abdicated. There
was no similitude between the condition of the soldiery
in the present times and the obnoxious reign of James
IL lie had now stated to the Jury the whole of the
letter, which was one of such a nature that the At-
torney-General would have been guilty of a derelic-
tion of his duty if he had not instituted this prosecu-
tion. It was difficult for him to conceive anything
that could be delivered in stronger terms ; and it
was the duty of Government to put down libels of
this description ; for if such things were tolerated,
no one knew where they would end. The Press was
a most tremendous engine when it was abused, and
a source of the greatest blessings when decently con--
ducted. The Jury were the true Censors of the Press,
and the guardians of the law, and it -wa; their duty
to see that the Administration of the country should
not be brought into contempt and hatred. With these
observations he should conclude what he had to say;
and he was confident that their verdict would be the
result of a sound and correct judgment.
Mr. Samuel Brooks was now called.-lle said he lived in the
Strand, in London. He knew the defewiant ;he was acquaint-
ed with• his hand-writing; he believes the letter now shewn
him to be his band-writing ; it came to his hands in August last,.
through the hands of a professional Gentleman, Mr. Bickerstal:.
The letter came in an envelope; he had not got the envelope,
' and does not know whether it came by the post. Hehad a copy
of It sent to the papers. He waited on Lord Sidnsouth on the
subject of the letter ; cannot recollect the day.
Whose 'hand-writing was the envelope ?—A. It .Was Sir
Francis's.

Q. What was it ?—A. A desire to pulAish the letter in the
papers. The date of the letter is, August 22d. I received it a
day or two after. Witness being shewn another letter, was
asked if it was the hand-writing of Sir Francis? he said he did
not know. Ile wa.s shewn an envelepe, and asked if it was
the writing of Sir F. Burdett? be said, he did not believe it wai.
Win. Tooke, the next witness, said he was acquainted with
Sir F. Burdett's hand-writing. Being shewn the direction on
the envelope, and asked if it was his hand writing? he answered,
some of the letters were like his hand-writing, and he believed
the whole to be his.

Wm. Simpkin said, he kept the toll-gate near Kirby, about
one hundred yards from Kirby Park, where Sir Francis Bur-
' deft resided ; he saw him coming by his gate on the 22d and
23d of August last ; he was riding each time,
Cross-examined by Sir Francis Burdett.—The gate is on the
borders of the county, not far from Oakham, Rutlandshire.
Mr. Brooks being again called, said, the lettet was publishe4
in the British Press. Witness sent it to that paper. It was not
paid for as an advertisement ; but was left to the discretion of
the Editors of the Paper, whether they chose to insert it or not.
Here the letter was read by the Clerk of the Court, and the
British Press, containing the letter, was produced. Tile enve-
lope was next read, it was directed to Lord Viscount Stnsioren,
dated August 2s, and signed " FRANCIS Balsam." This letter
has been already before the Public • it was that in which he ac-
knowledged his being the author of the letter addressed to the
Electors of Westminster.

Mr. DIMMAN now submitted to the Court, that
there was no case proved which required an answer,
or which could come before the Jury. There was no
proof of the letter having been written in Leicester-
shire. It was merely proved that Sir Francis was
seen on horseback near Kirby Park on the day of the
date of the letter, and he might have rode into ano
ther county and dropped the letter in some Post-'
Office there. The bare writing of a letter %%MS no
offence; for there must be a publication proved by
direct evidence. The charge was, that he had pub-
lished this letter in the county of But it
might as well have been published in any other
county. It was quite as consistent, that he might
have written the letter in his study. taken a ride out,
met Mr. Bickerstaff in another county, and there de-
livered the letter to him. Such a thing could be in
no way inconsistent with the facts just given in evi-
dence. There was no proof that the letter was pub-
lished in the county of Leicester; and a Jury would
be perjured if they found a man guilty of an offence
alleged to be committed in one county, without proof
that it was committed in such county.
Mr. CLARICE objected to this mode of argument,
as being an address to the Jury, and not a point of
law submitted to the Bench.

Mr. DENMAN said, there were many cases in paint,
and one of them was the very case alluded to by Mr.
Serjeant Vaughan; that of the Se7en Bishops, where
the Judges gave their opinion that there was no
proof of the petition to the King having been pub-.
lisped in the County of Middlesex, until Lord Sun-
derland had proved that he had presented it to the
King on behalf of the Bishops. Now, he submitted
that there was no proof as to what county the letter
was written in. But even if the letter was put into
erost-office in the County of Leicester, it was no
publicati.m in that County, because it was not shewn
to any one there; nor was it any publication. at AI,
until it arrived at the place of its destination. Mr.
Denman quoted some other cases in support of his
argument. lie admitted that Sir Francis Burdett

I might very properly have been brottzlit before a
'Jury in Middlesex; but he maintained that the fact
of publication ought to be clearly shewn, that the
case might come within the jurisdiction of that
Court ; and that it could not be tried in any jurisdic-
tion except where it was published. The simple fact
of writing the letter was no libel ; it was not a libel
until it was delivered. Sir Francis might have-rode
out as far as 0 rkliam, in Ruzlandshire, which was
not far off, at the time when he was seen riding out
on the 2`2d of August, and left the letter there. Zt
was then, in his opinion, a case which could not go
to a Jury. The Seven Bishops wrote their Petition la
Serrey, yet they were not tried in that County, but
in the County in which it was delivered to the Ming.
There Was no proof of this letter having been seen
by any human eye in the County of Leicester, until
it was shewn in the Court that day. Therefore there was
no proof of its having been written or pirblisLed there.
Putt.etes follou el on the same aide. The
writing of the letter was not a publication F...r
Francis Burdett ; it never was published until it came
to Middlesex ; and there was not evc.i any evidence.
to shew that the le:ter was ever wiitten in Leices-
tershire. In the case of the Seven .Bishops, to
admitted that they wrote the paper in Surrey; 'and
then it was admitted, on behalf of the Crown, tl:at
there was not any evidence of publication in Surrey.
—The present was a case not only in point. but was
much stronger ; for there was neither admission nor
evidence to shew that this letter was written
Leicestershire. There was not the slightest evic:ence
to shew where Mr. Bickerstaff received the letter.
The onus rested on the Crown to shew how it came
out of the hands of Sir Francis Burdett to Mr. Wck-
erstaff. No such thing was (lore; and-theiefore there
was a complete chasm in the evidence.

Mr. Justice Bear said, he was of opinion that there
was evidence sufficient to go to the-Jury ; and the
objection now put might hereafter be urged in ano-
ther place, in arrest of judgment, if a confliction
should take place. The case of the Seven Bishops
was different, for the libel then was tried in the
County in Nsiiich it was alone circulated. In the
case of Justice Janson, it was decided that he might
be tried in Middlesex for the letter which he had
sent to Mr. Cobbett, and which was published in his
Register; but that decision did not shew. that ifb
might not he tried in Ireland, where the Letter was
written, On the same principle, it did not follow,
from the cases quoted, that Sir Francis Burdett might
not be tried in Leicestershire. It would be for the
Jury to say whether they thought there was sirfficienl
evidence to shew that the letter was written in
Leicestershire.
After a.lapse of about ten minutes, during which
the Judge, Jury, and Sir Francis Burdett retired,
Sir FRANCIS BURPEFT, at about half-past twelve,
rose to address the Jury. He began by thanking the
Learned Serjeant -for the handsome manner in which
he had spoken of him ; and in what he might say of
the powers of the Attorney-Generalhe begged to be
understood as not intending to throw anyreflection on
that Officer personally, but on the Office itself.. Tne
mode of prosecution by ex-efficio information he de-
clared to be unconstitutional—reptynant to Alcpa
C/,artit. and to every principle of jtestice. It was the
duty of the Attorney-General to h Ave sent him 'before
a Grand Jury ; and if he had, he (Sir Francis)would
have been saved all the trouble he was now put to.
The first question the Jury had to try, was a fact of
which there was not a tittle of evidence before them;
so far from there being any proof to show that
the letter was put into any Post-office in Leices-
tershire, he (Sir Francis Burdett) declared he did not
know himself; nor did any of his servants know
what Post-office it had been put into ; so much
was he in the habit of going About to different
places, writing letters in different places, and
then putting them into different Post-offices. He
was therefore brought to trial in Leicestershire,
while it was not known whether the act he was
charged with had been done in that county. He was,
by a paltry and pettifogging quibble, taken out of
the protection of his natural Judges—out of his own
neighbourhood, where his principles were truly un-
derstood, and his conduct known, to a county which
could know nothing of him, and which was selected
by.the Attorney-General, most probably from a cal-
culation of the prejudices and misconceptions which
prevailed tlere against his (Sir Francis's) political
principles. In so doing, the Attorney-General had
been guilty of a double libel-,-he libelled his na-
tural Judges, by imputing partiality, and he lie
belled the Jury before whom he (Sir Francis) then
stood, by supposing that twelve Englith Gentle-
men, of whatever political bias, would judge him
not by the facts, but by their own prepossessions.—
The Attorney-General selected the County of Leices-
ter, to find, not a trial, but' a victim. Ought such
unconstitutional powers to be left at she discrctio
of an office, the holder of which must act against his
own honour, and often be thi tool of political ma-
lignity ?
The JUDGE interposed, and said such language was
not proper to be applied to a high and responsible
Officer of the Crown.

Sir FRANCIS denied that he was an Officer of the
Crown—he was not, as the Judges were, independent.
He was, in a word, the creature of the breath of the
Minister, and cxpired with his power. This distinc-
tion, with submission to the Learned Judge, was very
material for his defence, because, when it was •known
on wham the Attorney-General depended, the motives
of the present prosecution would be clearly under-
stood. Why did not the Attorney-General send him
to a Grand Jury in Middlesex, and iry him there?--
The reason, doubtless, was, that he despaired of a
conviction in Middlesex, and expected he should End
men in this county who ente,.zaineet strong prejedices
against him for his supposed political principles.—
Sir Francis next adverted to the undefined character
of a libel; it• was impossible for any man to tell
-what it was ; the term was borrowed from clic worst
part of the Roman law, and adopted first Erg.
land by the infamous Court of Star Chan,bor.
was known that what was declared to be a libel
'one County, Was declared in another Conntrnot to
be a libel. • This was the clearest proof he could gi-e*
of the expressions practised against melt on char es
of having published libels, indeed it was ditficUlt for
any man charged with such an offence to know how
to defend himself. If he were charged with a mu;-
der, he should know how to defend himself; but not
when charged with what was called a libel. The
of Libel was even mo.e undefined than tl:e s2":z.lry

1
1
1