Star.
London, England, 1817-06-06 00:00:00

LAM' INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JUNE S.
LIBEL.
Tit! O. T. J. WooLLER.
The trial of the defendant excited very great in-
terest, and at an early biur the Court was crowded.
Upon the Bench, near his Lurdsiop, b,l! Mr B4PIO
GARKOW, Lord CAsTLattitao“, and Mr CANNING ;
but the two latter tented before the defendant corn-
menced his case. Syr FRANCIS BURDITT, and seve-
ral other Members of Parliament, were also present.
is was an information filed by the Arrottoxr-
GIUMAL for a libel publised by the defendant, race-
, ling on his Majesty's Ministers.
The ATTOHNZY GILNKRAL stated the case to the
Jury. He observed, the libel in question was pub,
lished by the defendant on the lid of April \last. in a
periodical publication, of which he was the proprietor,
called Me Mack Dwarf, and whist was vublished by
him, :hough he employed other persons tbssell it for
him. Amongst other blessings which we enjoyed.
was the blessing of a free press ; but for the welfare
ut the State, and the comfort of individuals, it was
necessary that bounds and limits should be set to
that liberty; without which, it would degenerate into
licentiousness. He would state boldly, and without
fear of contradiction, that there were bounds and li-
mits, and if the defendant had exceeded these bounds,.
it then became the duty of the law to restrain him.—
To discuss freely. fairly, and boldly, all public men-
sines, was a liberty of the press, the exercise of which,
be hoped, he should be the last to attempt to re-
strain ; but to impute to Ministers of the Clown
wicked and corrupt motives of action, was. he would
state, witbeut fear of contradiction, a libel on the
State and people. It had been laid down by our
wisest Judges, both before and since the Revolution,
that to impute corruption to Ministers was at all
times a crime against the State, which went to affect
even its safety and existence. He was ready ti ad.
mit, that public measures were open for fair discus-
sion, and even in the effervescence of the moment, if
a man was led somewhat beyond the line of prudence,
he would be the last to take notice of it ; but where
there was a system of imputing to Ministers entrap.
ti a and treachery from beginning to end it was ao
longer a discussion at folly or aisdom, but a system
of wicked and intentional libel. If it could be al-
lowed to exist against one set of Ministers. it might
ram against all, sod where then would be the safety
of the State t The Learned Counsel then proceeded
to contend, that such had been the course adopted
by the daindant, in the libel with which he had now
to chaige him. and by the publication of which h%
intended to introduce disaffection into the minds of
the Ring's subjects against the Government, and
against the King himselt, and to scandalise him and
his Ministers Was it not, he would ask, to scanda-
lize Ministers and the Government to say, that a
system had been carried on to destroy the liberties of
the subject ? To say that was the motive by which
Ministers were guided in their conduct of affairs, not
only at home but abroad
.? Was this, he would ask,
the fair liberty of the press—was it not rather licen.''
tiousness, which tended to overturn all the establish.
meats of the country ? He was aware it would be
said by some, that the present defendant was prose-
cuted to answer certain particular purposes ; that he
would deny ; the act of filing the information was
his act ; if he was wrong let all the blame rest on his
bead. as it QUghl to do ; he had done it without con-
sulting any individual who could have been suppo.
sed to influence him; and he had done it in a conscien-
tious discharge of ins duty. He would now proceed
to read the libel, and if the detendant, by reading
any other part of his publication, could explain away
the libellous tendency of it, he was at liberty to do
an. The libel began with the words—" When we
state what England formerly was, and what she is
novi, we start from the contrast, of what we were,
and what we are." it went on---. 44 Our Ministers
have deceived and betra;ed us. We have to reproach
them with most ialamuus duplicity and dreadful
treachery—they promised to fight our battles whilst
they fought their own. Whilst they talked of pa-
donuts, they meant blood. They had engaged in a
contest against freedom abroad to sacrifice freedom
at home—that Constitution which France bad never
thought of assailing, and which she never wished to
injure, had perished ignobly at St. Stephen's." It
went on—is If we were to perish, let it be in the open
light of heaven, making appeals to the God of Free-
dom against the agents of slavery and degradation."
The Attorney General said, these were some of the
passages of the libel ; upon which he proceeded to
comment at considerable length, and contended that
the whole was founded in falsehood. So far from
combating against liberty, we had combated for and
preserved her, not only at home, but abroad. But it
was thus that, in all nines, there would be found bad
and wicked men, who would take advantage of any
opportunity of misrepresenting and working on the
folly and passions of the distressed. There was also
a second libel in the same publication, on Lord Ca.
tlereagh and Mi. Canning, individually. Here, ad-
verting to Mr. Canning, the defendant said...." The
unblushing impudence of Canning's brazen fe mires
enables him to sit in that Assembly (meaning the
House of Commons) from which he ought to be
driven with execrations." He then proceeded to
draw a parallel between a statesman who betrayed
his trait, and a petty pilferer who plundered from
Want and distress{ and applying the parallel to Mr.
Canning, he continues—" When the gibbet was pre-
pared for the one, the scaffold should be ready for
the other." To state this generally, the Attorney
General said, no one would deny to be legal ; but to

. apply it to individuals WI Certainty Marlton& The
gteat `ell of th se pittilicat;ons Was, Pia 0-* first
stated sums broad and forcil/le Reiter 1 pftetnitilofis
and then applied it io individulls. After s .trse fur-
ther obserest.ons hii the inisel.fevoris tendenty di the
line r'f conduct adopted by the .fefendant. the AV
t-rney General tOnluded by deciarins his convie.
don, that the Jury would with him attrkes that the
publicatior no before den, was a most scandelous
libel. H- then proceeded to c.illee de, ce.
B. Steed was called h. prove the publiLaiion of the
libel —The defendant said, Ire would admit himself
to be the author, puttlish, r, add prieter ii;s r.e paper
called is The Black Dwarf," read by Mr. Attorney-
General. The libel was then read.
B. Steed was called back and stated, th it he re-
ceived for sale 1()00 numbers of the paper containing
the alleged libel of the "d of April. He received
them from the defendant.
Mr. Broom proved the name and lid:. c' Lord
Castlereagh, and that he WAS a Knight of it e Garter.
Witness was also acquainteJ with Mr. Caniiiii. , who
was a Privy Councillor, and his title in consequence
Right Honourable. Witness had seen ine of the
papers in question—that of the 2J of April, and be-
lieved what was there stated, beginning —o we state
from the contrast. He understood the veord eve,"
to apply to the whole people of England, and where-
ever the words "our Ministers" were in•roduced,
he considered the sentence to apply to his .Majesty's
Ministers ; and in the second paragraph, beginning,
the "appetite of our statesnum," be c.,nsideted to
apply to Lard Castlereagh and Mr. Canning.
Grose examined by the ilefendant.—W 1)4 was the
witness's reason fur supposing that tl:e word Ministers
applied to his Majesty's Ministers ?—Answer. Wit-
ness did not know any other individuals to whom it
could apply.
Defendant.—Did witness think his Majesty's Mi-
nisters were the only persons in the country who could
deceive or betray?
Mr. Justice Anteerr desired the defendant would
put his questions in such a shape that the witness
might be able to answer them.
The Defendant said, he should decline any further
questions. He then proceeded to address the Jury
in his defence. He trusted, he said, notwithstanding
what had been said by the Attorney-G• neral, that in
.publithing the alleclged libel, he had only exercited
the privilege legally possessed by es ery public writer.
In late times the law ed libel had been pushed to a
most a atraoroinary length, and the powers of Attor-
ney-Generals had been wrested tar beyond *hat they
were in old times. He would ask, whether in former
times a man would have been dragged fawn his lions*
and bit ,amity, shut up in a prison, and perhaps re-
duced to ruin by such illegal and unconstitutional
proceedings ?
Mr. Justice Aaaorr here interposed, and cautioned
the defendant, that it was not allotted him to say in a
Court of Justice, that proceedings by Intorasa ion.
which were as old as the law itself. were illegal or
unennstitutional.

['he Defendant continued: He consid Ted himself
at liberty to describe them as illegal, because he con-
sideted them as contrary to Mao* Chat La and the
Bill of Rights. He then proceeded to reply to the
Attorney General's speech, and observed, he could
not give the Learned Gentleman toll credit tor his at-
'raisin, that tins posecutn,n was entirely h s town ;
there were two niacin) ttions prating against him,
one 01 which certainly was filed by the I ate Attor-
ney-General; and the second, he brlievri, was pre-
paled before the present Attorney-Gratzl came onto'
office. .lo advert to the aliedged I.e -lad not
come there to deny his principles, but to avow them;
and it was not a political harangue 1r -in an Attor-
ney-General that would make him change them.
The Jury. though honest men, might differ front him
in politics; but it they believed he had any intenaimi of
promoting rebellion they were deceived ; he ad pted
the course he had done, in ht-pes of preserving our
Constitution inviolate, and therebypreventing rebellion.
He should be told, perhaps, he nerd not have been
two hours in confinement, whereas tie had beet. five
weeks ; but in a right cause, lie would never bend.
He had. therefore, suffered loss 41 liberty undei that
law. which he contended ought to ba repealed by the
general execrations of the pe iple It he had had a
wife and children. and a business which could not
have gone on without him, he then oust have sub-
mitted. Dtu he was single, and had no one to care
for him, and lie cared not what distant dungeon the
sentence 4,1 condemnation, it it passtd, might send
him to. (Here were loud ex/Ire:rival of applause frsis
the crowd in the Corer, which was excessive.)
Mr. Justice AllSoTTs.ild, it any perstni at; 'in pre-
sumed to disturb the proceedings, by such Intl, cent
expressions, either of applause or disappr. Wotan, be
would commit them.

The Defendant proceeded.—He was charged with
a libel reflecting on the King ; that could not be ; it
was said the King could do no wrong ; in other
words, he did nothing Innis flf, all acts stele the acts
of Ministers, and they were ens,' erable tor them ; and
on the acts of Ministers only had he commented. He
contended that, in stating they had deceived and de-
luded the people, he had only stated truth : they had
promised to restore good order and social happinev?..
Good order and happiness were not restored. If
fighting to restore Legitimate Governments—if haw.
ing restored the most detestable system of G..vei n meet
which the people °IA country were eve: hos rtherie d with,
was to restore good order on the Omtinent, then st
had been done. The Attorney-Genet:A had complain-
ed of the liberty of the press becoming licentiousness,
and said it was necessary to put limits and bounds to it.
If it did want bounds, he trusted theAttoritev-General
was not the person who would be selected to fix these
bounds and limits. If the bantling was rickets'.; and
wanted gnidiag, hehoped the Attorney. Generat would.
ant have the leading.strinys given into his bands.—
' The Attcrney-General had said public writers aught
discuss public measures fairly, Ireelv, boldly, and
strongly; perhaps the Learned Gentleman would
allow him to have dune the three last, but would
deny that he had done the first. The Attorney-Ge-
neral said, to accuse the Minister of an ~:tempt to
destroy the law, was a libel. He would say now,
they had not only attempted, but they had th.ne it;
they had subvetted that 'Corot tution, whicis they
declared was nut sufficient of itself to mt et est ticg
evils, which he was of opinion exisied only s.i the.;
imagoottma. Was it a libel to attack character
and gapacity, where neither character nor eapac:ty
existed ? With respect to the law of libel, it was

not generally known, perhaps, that it was imported
from that infamous Court, the Star Chamber, which
the virtuous Commons of England had abolished.—
It was, indeed, a part of the Justinian code, and was
imported from Constantinople. that land of slavery,
to be employed against the liberties of this country
in the 19th century. With respect to the imputed
libel, it was -only a part of.a General Essay upon
Administrations, from the French Revolution to the
present time. The Attorney-General had said there
were no particular motives for this prosecution. He
could mention a motive. Mr. Wooller wasthen pro-
ceeding to detail certain proceedings of a Reverend
Magistrate in the country, named Powis, who bad
committed we of his, the defendant's agents, for sel-
ling_UnfreffSped- papers.
Dre.Arronnev-Optenat, here interrupted 11111
de-
fendant> and submitted that he had no right to intro-
duce the name of a person not connected in any way
with the present case..
The. Defendant contended for his right of doing
so, to thew the origin of the' present prosecution.
Mr. Justice Anson, however, held the objection
of the Attorney General to be good.
The Defendant continued. It was never till this
transaction nal complained ot by him that his publi-
cation was i.o:iced 4 and soon atter Lis agent was ap-
prehended ter a libel. Toe defendant then repeated,
that public writers had a legal right to discuss the
measures of Minige:s ; and that doing so with free-
dom and boldness, was not refizcting on the King,
since it was as established sioctrinc that the King
could do no wrong—a doctrine which left all the mea-
sures. if Grerlereniept ip the situation of measures
of Mieenote only, unfit's such, open to discussion.—
The defenslant.then proceeded to read long extracts
from rotmer *Publications, and front thence ea/led
on :14 -Jury, to. decide whether the alleged libel
was n;;; flue contintertion of a long and extended
alvieei of the measures of former administrittions,
cemmencing at the period of the hunch Revolution.
lie was ready to admit that the language of the ar-
ticle in questicht was strong—be intended it should
bt strosig: and he now asked, whether all the pro-1
raises made by Ministers, through the course which
had reviewed, tad not been falsified?—whether
eley, inatfad vi being the guardians of the liberties
of C:e Cor.stitution, had not invaded them? He called
ea Ministers to say, whether they had not done this,
by lice suspension cf the Habeas Corpus Act, and by
the Caggit,t Bills ? and theae measures he alluded to
when he o..id the Constitution had perished at St.
Stephen's. What he had said of the agent's of slavery
and degradation, had been much co:mewed on.—
Had we not stranding armies in time of peace i Was.
not the Habeas Corpus Act suspended ? and he must
ever consider as the agents of slavery and degrada-
tion, those who could not govern us without suspend-
ing our Constitution, and invading our liberties. The
defendant continued to read and to comment on the
different passages of the alleged libel. As he pro-
ceeded, he said his sentiments were those which the
future historian would write, and which he would
continue to write, as long as he had the power of
holding a pen. He was well aware, notwithstanding
the declaraion of the Attorney-General, thai. the pre-
sent prowcution was not intended against him only;
but that it was intended, through him, to attack all
public writers who might presume, as be had dune,
to atracf. —not individuals, or their characters—hut
the nrzat.t.res ot Administrations generally, ever since
the period of the French Revolution; and the Jury
would now have to say, whether, in doing this, lie, and
othess.who acted with him, had been guilty of bel
and a breach of the law ? Standing as be did, he
should throw himself entirely upon them, fully per-
suaded that they is oald by their verdict do justice.
The Atrounev-GeeNeitaz. then rose to reply, and
observed, however the defendant, or any other per-
son might call themselves public writers, lie should
never take the Law of England from such sources,
but from the long-established practices and decisions
of the Courts ot Law, and the wisest Judges who
bad ever graced the Bench. One cause of complaint
on this occasion, the defendant could ant make ; that
was, that he had not been allowed full freedom of
speech. The defendant bad made foil use at hit pri.
vilege, and in the course of his address, had claimed
for those who called themselves public writers, a pri-
vilege of imputing to public men, the most corrupt
and wicked Intentions that ever could enter the mind
et 1113 an. If such a claim was to be established, he
would ask of she Jury if it would be possible that
any Government could exist ? He would ask. whe-
ther such imputatioes cast on public functiOnaries,
could be classed within the meaning of fair, free, or
be would even add, though the mad' had been so
much commented upon bold discussion. Whether
ft could have any other object than to stir up disaf-
fection and corruption to produce revolution, and to
excite and stir up the energies of which the defen-
dant had spoken against the King and his Govern-
ment, and with that intention be now charged the
defendant— (Here were load ex/Ire:rime of dirapproloation
in the Court.)
Mi. Justice Anaotr again declared, that though
with great reluctance, be should, if this conduct were
repeated, feel himself obliged to order those who die-,
terbed the Court to be taken into custody. Persons
who wished to see justice administered, should be
aware that it was not to be obtained by any attempt
so influence its administration, either by espressions
of applause or disapprobation.
The A TTOMMit-GENZRAL resumed. He would
never be deterred by any clamour from discharging
1.4 duty whilst he had strength to do it. He con-
tended, and he was convinced the Jury-would think
so too, that she defendant had not in his whole ad-
dress uttered one sentence which operated as a de-
fence. He (the Attorney General)•did not mean to
contend, that the Jury were not the proper judges of
the law as well as the fact of libel ; and they would
say, after they bad received the treneSt of his Lord-
snip's opinion, wbeo the paper should !Live been put
into their bands for their consideration, whether this
was fair, free, and liberal discussion; or whethei it
was not calumny, Weeded to sem the most wicked
and mis.ievous purr:ties? Thelnestion they would
rave to decsde wai most important one; for if this
was not a mbid, he was at a loss to conceive what
language could hereafter be called libelous.
Mr. Justice Amore, his summing up, after
stating the words of the alledged libel, said, the
question for the Jury to decide, was, whether the
publication iu questioa was or_ was not libellous?—

They would bare to say wl.etl,er it wet fair. free,
and liberal discussion, such as every man had a right
to enter into on the conduct of public men and upon
public measures? The Defendant, in the opecing
of his Address, had thought proper to complain of
the coarse which had been adopted in prosecuting
him. He (the Learned Judge) felt it his duty to
say, that proceeding by information was legal, and as
old as the law itself. The Defendant had said that
this could be no reflection on the King, because it
only applied to the Ministers: but the Jury would be
aware that expressions might be applied to measures
not only tending to affect the Throne itself, but
also to bring into discredit both Houses of Parlia-
ment, who -had agreed on the necessity of those
measures. The Defendant had also sad, that the
law of libel was imported into the Court of King's
Bench from the Court of S'ar Chamber. The law
of libel was known in the Court of King's Bench
long before the Court of Star Chamber existed.—
The Learned Judge then advervd to the opinion
given by Lord Camden, a judge always alive tt,, and
Anxious for, the protection of pu%lic liberty, in the
case of Mr. Wilkes and General Warrants, tried in
the Common Pleas, in which that great and Learned
Judge declared it to be the duty of Courts and Juries,
whenever attempt: were made to discredit the Go-
vernment by libellous publications, to set their faces
against such publications ; otherwise they would be-
come parties to the overthrow of the Government.—
The Learned Judge then proceeded to comment
upon the libel, sod observed, that the measures impu-
ted by the defendant m Ministers, and for which he
spoke of them in such strong language, could not
have been canied into effect by Ministers till they
had first been adopted by the Legislature. With re-
spect to the libel on Lord Castlereagh and Mr. Can.
ping, the defendant had drawn a parallel between
An °Sender in the lower class of life, ono one in
the rank of those individuals whom he had men-
, tioned. Lie then applied the parallel to them, and
said, whilst the gibbet was got ready f. r the one of-
tender, the scaffold should be prepared for the other.
After some further observations, the Learned Judge
concluded by saying, it would be expected that he
should, as his duty called on him to do, give an opi-
nion whether the publication was a libel or not? He
had no hesitatior. in saying, that in bis opinion it was
a malicious, scandalous, and 'seditious libel.

In answer to a question from one of the Juiy, his
Lordship observed, it had been repeatediy laid doin
by the must eminent Judges, Lord Raymond and
ethers, that proving the truth in CaSti. of information
or indictment was no justification of libel.
The Jury then retired, and after being locked up
for about two hours, they returned to the little room
behind the Bench, and two of them only advancing
into the Court (the remainder not being visible), all
their names were called over in the vv.,' form, ex-
cept the talesmen, and being asked whether they
had agreed upon their verdict ? the Foreman pre-
duced a written paper, which be said coi. tallied the
special reasons upon which three of his Brother Jurors
consented to join with the rest in a verdict.; but being
stopped by the Learned Judge before the contents of
the paper were read, by the petemptory question—.
(i whether they had agreed upon a verdict of Guilty
or Not Guilty r"I'lle Foreman said they had agreed
upon a verdict of Guilty, but—(and appeared to be
going on to state the special circumstauces of the
verdict)—when the Learned Judge recorded the ver-
dict of Guilty, and the Jury retired.
[At this time the trial of a second 'information
against the defendant for another libel, had advanced
nearly to its case. and atter the second Jury bad
been charged, and had retired,] •
Mr. CIIIITY, who bad been in the mean time in-
structed to act as Counsel for the Defendant, ad-
Messed Mr. Justice itairry, and acquainted his
Lordship that the three Gentlemen who had sat upon
the former Jury having dissented from their brethren
as to the mode of bunging in their verdict, they
could not consent to return a general -verdict of
Guilty. They desired to return a special verdict, or
withdraw their finding altogether, in order to have it
recoasides ed. The Learned Counsel was quite per-
suaded that the Crown could not desire to have a
verdict of guilty against the defendant without the
unanimous concurrence of the Jury.
Mr. Justice Anaorr said, that the last observation
of the Learned Counsel was quite unnecessary—it
might have been spared; for it was dot to be supposed
that the Crown could wish to act otherwise than was
consistent with law and justice. The Jury, however,
had returned a general verdict of guilty; that verdict
had been recorded, and it was now too late to recal
it, the Jury having dispersed.
The Defendant interposed and strongly protested
against this proceeding, as cruel and oppressive. It
was contrary to law and justice, to :eject the special
verdict of a Jury, three of whom bad doubts of the
defendant's guilt.
Mr. Justice ABBOTT expressed his utter ignorance
that the Jury at all doubted of their verdict. They
' were distinctly asked whether they had agreed in their
verdict and the foreman replied that they had. The
verdict had been recorded. It was now too lawand
contrary to all practice to disturb it. If any doubts
were entertained of the verdict, it must be the sub-
. jeer of a motion in another place.
The "Defendant said, that the Jury had not re-
turned their verdict in open Court, as by law they
were bound to do, only four of them being visible to
the by-standers.
Mr. Justice ABBOTT said, that he could hear no
more upon the subject in this place. The matter must
be the subject of a motion in Term.