Star.
London, England, 1829-12-24 00:00:00

THE GOVERNMENT LIBELS.

At four o'clock yesterday we gave an abridged report of the
proceedings at the instance of the Duke of WiLuwaros and of Mr
Pam. against the Prupnetors of the Morning Journal; and in a se-
cond edition the preceding day, we published a similar report of the
case of Lord lANPUURIT against the same individuals—three ver-

diets, affecting the freedom of opli.ion and the liberty of the press,
In the brief space of thirty-six hours! To-day, we d, em it et to
go into some further details of these Court proc.edings, on a sub-
ject of such vital importance to the country at large; and proceed
at once to repeat, that yesterday
Lord Temvxaoan came into Court at half-past nine o'clock.
when the following Special Jury was sworn .

J. W. Satherlaid, F.q. IJ. 1. Sherwood. ditto
J. P. Andrey, F.sq. W. M. Drown. Lq.
Alfred Baton, Fag. R. J. Chambers. Magistrate.
Geo. Goodwin, Esq. Geo. Smith, Esq.
J. Brown, E.sq. Thos. Watson, Faq.
Richard Hilhouse, Esq. I Henry Smith. Esq.

The Attorney- General, the Sslicitor- General, Mr. Gurney,
Mr. Brougham, Mr. Alderson, and Mr. Wightman, appeared for
the prosecution. Mr. F. Pollock and Mr. Iltli conducted the de-
fence of Gutch ; Mr. Barstow appeared for Fisher ; and Alexander
conducted his own defence.
Mr. WIGIETKAIN stated that this was a CflMitl information bled
by the Attorney-General in his official situ tion, for a libel pub
fished in a paper called the Morning Journal, of which the defend.
ants John Fisher, John Matthew Gutch, and Robert Al-sander,
were the printers, publishers, and proprietore, on the Duke of
Wellington, one of his Majesty's Ministers, charging him with
bringinghis Majesty into contempt by stating that he could no
show himself to his people, thereby meaning that his Majesty wa
unpopular.
The Atnoartts-Genxaat. rose and said—As the nature of this
pfcrowt9i had been stated by his Learned Friend who had just
at down, he jrould not trouble them with further observations on
that subject. The defendants were the proprietors. and one of
them, he understood, was the editor of the Morning Journal, a news-
paper which had lately eaceeded all other journals in the violence
of its principles. The publication in question took place on the
14th of May, in the present year. It charged the Duke of Wel-
lington with bringing his Majesty into contempt. 'The object of it
was, to make the readers believe that his Majesty was under the
restraint of the Duke of Wellington, and that he bad actually sub-
mitted to an indignity of the kind. Whatever might be the ten-
dency of this libel, whatever may be the ignorance displayed by
the writer of it, and whatever might be the credit attached to such
a paragraph as the one in question, and even if the libel was pre-
pisstereus, it was the duty of the Jury to find a verdict for him, if
they were of opinion that it was the intention of the writer to in.
donate that the Sovereign of this country was in the contempslbb
eindition of being under the restraint 4 his chief adviser. The
Gentlemen of the Jury would recollect, that in the early part of
this year most important discussi•tns arose, in consequence of his
Majesty advising Parliament to take into its consideration the peep
priety of admitting a certain class of subjects who had been excluded
front sitting in the Houses of the Legislature, into Parliament. He
drew their attention to this, because it gave rise to the libel. He
was perfectly indifferent to the sentiments of the Jury on that
gwetboo—•whether it ought to have been settled as it had been, or
whether it oughtaot, was not now for them to decide ; bet to him
it appeared policy, as it terminated much of that public discord
which existed. In compliance with his Majesty's speech, the Par-
liament came to the decision that they ought to be admitted, and
when that was decided, it was time that angry discussion should

cease. It we: the duty of the defendant who had Written tit pa-
ragraph to inculcate obedience tit tits laws of hit 01111 try, to ab
rain from personal attacks on ind victuals, and not to ebdeavour to
bring the Legislature into contempt. It was also his duty to avoid
giving off lice to the Sovereign power by mating that which was tan•
founded and untrue. It appeared that the defendant Alexander. who
was the individual he had above alluded to as the author of the libels
was convinced that the measure could nut pass, and that to make his
readers believe that he knew more than he really did know.
he wrote the libel to make it appear that the Duke of Wellington
had actually compelled the Sovereign to recommend the measure
to Parliantent. Instead of observing a respectable line of conduct,
he (Mr. Alexander) thought fit to persist in his hostile attacks on
the individvals forming his Majesty's government, and the Sove-
reign himself; and even after Parliament had acquiesced in the
policy of admitting that portion of his Majesty's subjects to seats in
the legislature, who had been before ezcluded, he wrote the most
deliberate, most infamous attacks on the members of the govern-
ment, and thought fit to represent that his Majesty had submitted
to personal restraint—to be influenced in a mangler unworthy of
any sovereign. It became the Sovereign of this country to be
free ; and that freedom, he believed he might say, w.s never pos-
teased, by any monarch who had been seated on the throne of this
country, in a greater degree than by his present M tjesty ; and he
was sore there never was a monarch who would not resent mote
soy restraint that might be attempted to be imposed upon him.
He would now tura to the libel; it was written in a style of pity.
which was the greater insult, as it was directed from such a quar-
tet to such a quarter ; it stated that his Majesty dared net to show
himself in public, that be was eta placed by his minister that he
could not enjoy the pleasure of exhibiting himself to his people.
Was that a ht expression to apply to a king, especially a king of a
free country ? was it a proper expression to apply to any monarch ?
One of the defendants had said that there were other publicatiuos
of a worse description than those for which he was proceeded
against, and he had asked, why, therefore, select him as the object
of these prowutions? This was no defence for a libel of this de-
scription—was it a defence that because one thing had escaped
prosecution another should? Ile (the Attorney General) was cs-n-
-vinced the Jury would see that it was ridiculous to maintain fur a
single moment such an argument. It was his duty to select which
paper should be proceeded against when libels were contained iu
them, and it washis duty to select for which libel the party 14301.1
be prosecuted; and be thought he could not find • more proper
one than that which contained a personal attack on the Sovereign.
The Jury would say whether they were of opinion that this publ -
cation placed the Sovereign in the light in which a Sovereign of
this realm should be placed. He (the Attorney-General) did not
comprehend the whole of the publication, but it would not be al-
lowed for a man to state that his Sovereign was an object of pity.—
The libel stated that the King had once been popular. and that he
now was an object of pity, but that he might again become popu-
lar; thereby stating that be was now unpopular, and that he could
not act from his own discretion, and without restraint. Wherever
the writer obtained this intelligence he knew not, but it was false.
His object la stating that the Sovereign was under restraint was
an attack upon the ministry of the most poignant description—it was
an attack upon them at the expense of the feelings of his Majesty.
How did this writer know that the King was enthralled, and dared
not show himself to his subjects on account of his unpopularity ?
How did this writer know the feelings of the people towards their
Sovereign? They had had a specimen of the means by which be
became acquainted with that feeling. A procession had beets at-
tempted to be got up to go to Windsor, and be believed that it
dwindled into one paltry hackney-coach, with four horses. His
Majesty did not appear and receive this patty. What crime, there-
fore, had be door, that he dared not show himself? Was this a
proof of his not being popular? This writer had indulged in the
most severe invectives against his Monarch, and persons holding
the highest station, with the intention of bringing them into con
tempt. and he was certain no person, not even one who was an ad-
vocate for the liberty of the Press, would permit a person to write
a personal insult to his King. If be was addressing a Jury whose
sentiments corresponded with his, he was convinced that when the
writer was brought before them they would feel as he did.
A Gentleman from the Stamp-office produced a certificate front
the office. He also produced a copy of the Monsing Jostreql of the
4th May, 1829.

The certificate was then put in and read. .
The paper was then put in, and the officer read the libel :—" We
have the best reasons for stating that his Majesty has lately evinced
more than marked coolness towards his Grace the Duke of Wel-
lington ; the cause of this is known, but as stones have ear., we
shall, to a certain extent, be silent furs the present : hi. Majesty, it
is said, complains bitterly that his Ministers have placed him in
such a position that be cannot enjoy the pleasure of exhibiting him-
sell to his people. George the Fourth was, till m sot, a populw
Monarch, but he has been rendered otherwise by the act of Id .
imperious Minister. We deeply lament the occurrence, but public
feeling is an ever moving tide, it is affeced I,y causes which, ai-
de ut,h invisible, often lead to dia.; roue re,u:ts. We pity our
aged and revered Sovereign, but there are morrows wands are too
poignant to be relieved by the secret tear—they mu-t be rendered
torpid by other appliances. It is sufficiently obvious that there
never was a more ambitious or more d.ingerous Minister in Eng-
land that the Duke of WcUington. But it s ascend .ucy over the
Monarch tee such a. it is represented—sir lather such as it is repre-
sented to have been, then we are sure that tiatianal sympathy muse
.pen:t.ne wily flow towards the King. The people mu.t feel in-
t, n•ely the restraint imposed upon the Sovereign, and regret that,
ore' .wing with goodness, as be is kind to caress, loudly attacked.
to his subject', and paternally auaiuus to see then all prospereu,
and happy, he cannot mingle with their public eatertait.menes, or
receive those congratubtlons which must be gratifylog to hi. Ma-
jesty in the wane of his existence. But his Majesty may set have
strength and intrepidity to burst his fetter., dismiss from before his
throne evil counsellors, and assume that situation in public °pink iii
which befits a popular Monarch."
Mr. Gs eville,ex smined by Mr. Cuellar—Am clerk to his Ma-
jesty's Privy Council &tore and on she lath of May bit Grace
the Duke of Wellington was one of the members of the Council.
Lord Tincraaose said that there was no evidence of the Duke
of Wellington's being one of his Majesty's Minister'.
Mr. Grevilk said that his knowledge extended to the fact that
the Duke of Wellington was a member of the Pavy Council and
First Lord of the Treasury.
Sir J. Semmes: remarked, that as First Lord of the Tr. asury
be must necessarily be one of the Ministers.
Mr. F. Peewee then addressed the Jury in belt ,U the de-
fendant Gutcb. He commenced with stating that he appeared for
Gutch only, if he did yesterday. But after the atteotion with which
he had yesterday been Immured, both by his Lordship and the
Jury, on that neca-lon be should only occupy a few misstate f
their time. He had only to state that the line of defence which
he had thought it expedient to proceed in yesterday would be the
course which be should pursue to-day. Whether the publication
in question was a libel or not, Mr. Cinch professed to know
soiling. And again he declared (as be did yesterday) that he had
nothing to do with the publication of it. Ile should leave untouched
the question with respect to the nature of the paragraph; be pro•
(eased neither to admit nor to deny that it was hbellous ; Mr.
butch declared that he was not prepared to state anything on the
subject, either one way or the other—he would not prejudice the
cases of others by doing so. At the same time be felt him-
self justibed in separating his cliesit's case from that of the
other defendants, because the circumstanees of them were
essentially different. Mr. Glitch was merely one of the pro-
prietors of the newspaper in question, and had bad nothing
whatever to do with the edited,* department, and never inter-
fered in any respect In that department of the paper. No doubt
be had supplied funds for the management of the paper; but he
(Mr. F. Pou.ocs) contended itow—.4ll he did yesterday—that Mr.
Gately neither swell, nor personally, had anything to Jo with it.

He. in point of fact, knew nothing of the publication of this al
'gad libel. He had never by his conduct, either at the time or
afterwards, expiessed his approial of this paragraph. His defence
yesterday was Eis defence to-day—namely, that a partner with
abtrs was only responsible for his own acts, and ought not to be
made an for those of others. Although his lordship had differed
from him in the opinions which be had stated yesterday, be
should (with his lordship's permission) take another opportunity of
bringing the subject before the Court.
Lord Tinosarissi—lt is your right.
bk. Post oci said he was aware of that. After the opinion ex-
pressed by his lordship yesterday, be would now only occupy a
few moments of their time on this subject. His learned friend
(the Attorney-General) hi his opening speech, seemed to rely not
on the merits only of his own case, but bad put—in answer to
his observations of yesterday—an hypothetical case, which be
_ _

(Mr. Pollock) conceived did not at all apply. He bad opposed
the ease of two persons, one of whom provided pistols and other
weapons for the other, for the purpose of entering Into an engage-
ment to rob and plunder, or to commit any Illegal act. Now, ►e
seemed to compare this associatioo to the proprietors of newspa-
pers, who entered into paquership with persons of literary attain-
ments, for the purpose of conducting a newspaper. He (Mr. P.)
was at a loss to conceive bow an association like that to

which his Learned Friend had alluded could for one moment be
compared to the partnership of a capitalist with a man of talent for
the purpose of managing a newspaper. He (Sir J. Scarlett) bad
done this, well knowing that the press in this country (in his Mr.
Pollock's opinion most erroneously) was slowed as an engine of sus-
picion and danger. The press had formerly been—and indeed was--
in some degree now placed under considerable difficulties and re-
strictions. Most, however, of the old regulations which had re•
strained its liberty bad been repealed, and in particular that great
measure of Mr. Fox, by which the Jory had been declared judges

of the law as well as the fact In cue of libel, was a most Important

security for it. Previous to this, most of the Judges who had pre-
sided in the various Courts of Law had repeatedly declared that
the question of the publication being a libel or not was for the con-
sideration of the Court. This was a proof that in former times the
Press bad been viewed with much greater jealousy than at present,
and be conceived that a great portion of the jealousy with which it
was now viewed arose from groundless conies. If persons of capital
were made liable to punishment for whatever might appear in a news-
paper in which they had embarked capital, but over which they met-
deed no controul, he feared it would tend to throw newspapers into
the power of improper persons. He still conceived that the law did
not make one partner in a newspaper concern liable for the libels
which another person might publish without his consent ; and
be should bring the subject forward on another occasion. The
groundless fears prevailing from the power of the press have
been the cause of all these proceedings. When he made the ob-
servations which he did yesterday, on the non-liability of proprie-

tors of newspapers, he considered such opinion to be founded on

the law of the land. He was not only then of that opinion, but he
had seen no reason to alter it; be had entertained this opinion,
not only as the counsel engaged to defend the proprietor of a news-
paper, but it bad long been his private opinion. After the result of the
trial of yesterday, however, be should not now say anything more on
the subject. He felt assured that it would not operate prejudicially to
Mr. Gutcb, in consequence of Ms havingataken the line of defense
which he (Mr. Pollock) bad thought it expedient to do. He again
repeated that Mr. Gutch bad had nothing whatever to do with the
editorial department of the paper. That it was for the Jury to say
whether the publication in question was a libel, which, how-
ever, Mr. Gutch did not express an opinion upon. When he
made use of the expression libel, however, he trusted that it
would not act prejudicially to any one ehe. Mr. Out& had, im-
mediately after the commencement of these proceedings, exerted
_ _ _ _

himself to get rid of his share in the paper and in the hugeness,
which st last he had succeeded in doing. His client had acted with

the greatest propriety in this business, and be trusted that he should,
if the Attusney-General should think it expedient to bring him
up for judgment (which, however, he thought would not be the case)
be able to show that he ought not to be made liable for the
acts of another person, when he bad no controul over those acts,
and was at a distance at the time.

Mr. Marrow then shortly addressed the Jury for the defendant
Fisher. He said he was instructed to say that that person. w►o had
been the means of vending the publication in question, left his ease
entirely to the feelings of the Court and Jury. After the verdict
of yesterday, be (Mr. Barstow) thought that this was the best course
that his client could pursue.
Mr. Alexander then rose to address the Jury on his own behalf•
The Learned Gentleman ( Mr. Pollock) had said that be appeared for
only one of the defendants, and bad endeavoured to separate the
case of his client from that of the other defendants. The object of
the Learned Gentleman, it was obvious, was to defend his client
at any risk. even to the prejudice of others. In his (Mr. A.'s) opi-
nion, this was in no degree a libel, and he was surprised that the
Learned Gentleman did not explicitly state so; for in his ( Mr. A.'s)
opinion, he would have done his client much more justice if he said
so. and if he had been perfectly silent in his other observations. His
Lordship had yesterday stated that, in a case of libel, all parties
were equally liable, and that the law made no distinction.—
There certainly was no distinction in the. present case, for Mr.
Mitch and himself were partners, and in this case they must stand
and fall together, and the verdict of the Jury must be given in such
a way that both would be equally affected. Before bringing under
the consideration of the jury the merits of this case, it was ne
cessary that they should be informed of the history of the rise and
progress of these prosecutions. The Attorney-General bad very pro-
perly told them that the publication in question had grown out of the
discussion on the Roman Catholic bill—or, as it was called, 'the
Catholic Relief Bill. He bad no disposition to bring up now
the propriety of those measures, which the Attorney-General had
declared bad performed so much in allaying the angry feelings
of opposite parties, and had healed wounds which bad long beta
of a dangerous nature—by which hostile opipions had been
reconciled, and party opposition put an end to. He, however,
(Mr. Alexander) would ask the Jury whether they were surprised
at the warmth of one who bad long and sincerely entertained strong
opinions on this subject, at the sacrifice of so much of what he consi-
dered principle, at the abandonment of character and honour, by
so many persons. When that Bill was first introduced, every mind
which was capable of weighing it, or of considering its importance,
was excited on the subject. He bad relied on the public principles of
men whose honour bad never before been called in question, that
they would strongly and firmly oppose that measure. When the BM
was introduced, was it•surprising that he should feel greatly ex.
cited at the exhibition that took place? They must remember the
great public excitement, when men, who were bound by every tie
to oppose this question, bad deserted their former opinions. He
(Mr. Alexander) considered himself bound, not only from the
public situation which he held as editor of a Journal, but alike
bound by character and principle, to give his strenuous opposition to
a measure which he considered was fraught with danger to the well-
being of the country ; his opposition might not be wise, but he con-
sidered that duty called him to follow the line of conduct which be
did. His opposition, and his strictures on public men and measures
might have gone beyond the limits of discretion, but he coosiderod
that the magnitude of the question called for them. At the timed
publishing this alleged libel, namely, on the 14th of May, the on.
citement bad not been allayed. These proceedings against him
arose entirely from his conscientious opposition to a mean»
which be consideted to be fraught with danger. The Mal of
yesterday had been the first of the series. He would call to the
minds of theory that the very first motion made in that Coon by
the Attorney-General of Duke of Wellington was for a rule for
&criminal !oformatioo acainst him. This was the first of a studied
series of prosecutions to put down the liberty of the press in this
country. Before he directed their attention to the alleged libel
itself, he would shortly relate to them some circumstances which

bad occurred respecting these prosecutions. At the time when the
warm discussions were going olt respecting the Catholic question,
he was waited upon by a distinguished nobleman—a noble friend of
bb--who was intimately connected with the government of the Duke
of Wellington, who informed him that the Ministry had determined
to prosecute the Morning Journal. and that they bad been only re-,
strained by the circumstance of the resignation of Sir C. Wetherill,l
the Attorney-General, and the great difficulty they laboured under
finding a successor in that office; and also feeling, le consequent*
of the high degree of excitement in the public mind at that time,
the inexpediency of doing so. He was,however, bound to take wars.
log (and his 'obit friend fervently begged him particularly to regard
his caution) that on the very first slip, a failing which could by any
construction be made to appear libellous they had determined to pro-
secutebim. When he first beard this statement he did not believe%
nor indeed, until the commencement o(tbese prosecutions could he
. have done so. He would maintain that the alleged libel did not can-
lain one word which WllO not full of the utmost affection and respect
towards the Sovereign; and from the language used by Lord Ellen-
Jxtrough, that that learned personage held the doctrine that it was
'perfectly justifiable in a subject of the State to carry on political
discussions in the way which he had done ; it was a species of free
discussion which was perfectly warranted by the free institutions
of this country. He then adverted again to the case of Mr. Perry,
and, attar observing that that gentleman was honourably acquitted
of an offence in no respect different, he also pressed
upon the attention of the Jury the fact that an acquittal
was pninounced in a case where the writer went the length of
saying that a good government could not be obtained litchis country
until the then King should be in his grave, and the successor of
George the Third in possession of the sovereign authority. No
such inuendo could be dragged out of the publication then before
the Court. The Attorney-General bad told them that it was an of-
fence to pity the King; what! to express commisseration for the
state in which evil advisers had placed the Royal person? If that
were law, they might at once shut their offices, burn their books,
and throw their printing-presses into the Thames. If such lan,
guage were a libel. then he thread hold it to be his duty, and the
duty of every man in England, to petitioe Parliament for censor-
ship of the Press; under a censorship. they should have infinitely
more liberty than under any such state of the law of libel. He
would infinitely rather have a Board of Controul, with the learned
Gentleman, Mr. Gurney, at the head of it, to cut out with his scis-
sors all that was objectionable, and thus protect a man from- the
over-ardent expression of his opinions, than be exposed. as he rhea
was, to the effects of afessecution, for such he would call it, in thus
being brought to the bar of a public court for pitying his sovereign.
The Attorney-Gen. had not denied what was stated in the alleged
Ithel, namely, that there did exist more than a marked coolness be-
tween the King and the Duke of Wellington—lt was the flee there
was such a coolness (a laugh.) The publication stated that his Ma-
jesty bad complained that he bad net been allowed to exhibit himself
to his loyal people; and it went on to say, that till then " George IV,
hid been a popular monarch." Now the unfortunate sitaltdotfie
which ise(the defendant) stood, was just this be wee not allowed•svels
did be possess the swans, Islay before the jury any evidence to show
that tilts statement was tree. It might be as true as the hely bible,
but the Attorney-General would send hiss out of Court with a
legal objection. did he attempt to give any evidence to show that
it was true. He awned it was tree, and bow ass* any other
proof be offered Is the presets state of the law But. eves sup-
posing *lt to he otherwise, be had no difficulty in asserting that it
was no libel tending to degrade the character of the King, or to
bring him or his government into contempt. It did not say that
the King bad done this or that particular act; it merely said
that his Majesty had been placed, by the advice of his Minis-
44se, is a position which was Mehly hasardous. He (the de-
' feedant) ;remembered perfectly well that, immediately after tit;
passiag of the bill called the Roman Catholic Relief Bill.
a gentleman called on hint to ask his opinion whether, in the
event of his Majesty's going to ,Covent-garden or Drury-lane
Theetre, be would be likely to experience any thing like an
unpleasant reception. He decidedly gave his advice, under the
influence of the dutiful respect which be bore his Majesty, that
he should not incur the hasard of doing so, and the advice of the
defendant was taken; his Majesty did not go.—(Laughter.) The
Attorney-General, he observed, seemed muds amused at that
statement ; bet, be it remembered, there was no insinuation that
his Majesty bad been brought into that situation by his Minis-
ters. The libel went on to state they (of the Morelos Jeered)
regretted the occurrence, and Lord Ellenborough had ralittbar pub.
lie writers were entitled to use such language—they regretted that
their " aged and revered sovereign should have been placed in such
a situation." He then came to the second pan of the libel, and
said that his observations on the former were perfectly applicable
to the latter part. From beginning to end there was nothing but
an expression of regret that his Majesty should have been placed
in that embarrassing and unhappy situation. The next paragraph
referred to the Duke of Wellington. He would show that from the
unhappy agitations which arose out of the Catholic Question did
alone proceed these strictures upon the character of his Grace. In
the address which he published en the oth of Octoberoeite, on as-
suming the management of the Minting Jeunsal, he said that he
reposed great confidence in the Duke of Wellington ; that he was,
no doubt, trammelled by the measures of his predecessors ; that
he was bound by treaties; that be was tied up to a bad system,
but they (of the Morning Awned) would support him to the ut-
most limits of their conviction. There was surely no wain of
respect in that—the fact was, that the whole matter arose out
of the discussions and agitations immediately consequent upon
the introduction et the Catholic Relief Bill. It further went as
to say, he observed, that if it were true that his Majesty was really
under the influence in questien, the national sympathy would
naturally be excited for the King. It is to be hoped that they
might say so much without incurring the penalties of the law. The
Deem of Wellington was not King yet in this country—it was to be
hoped he was still a subject—nay more, that be was a public servant,
and as such, that every man bad a right to speak of him in what
terms be pleased. He (the defendant) had never spoken of the
Duke of Wellington otherwise than as a public man—he had never
entered the privacy of domestic life for the purposes of private
slander—to injure the happiness of families. If indeed be bed dose
as ether journalists had been known t. do, he might well have
bees charged with libel, and brought to the bar of a court—but
such was net the fact. It bad been made matter of accusation against
Wu that he had imputed ambition to the Duke of Wellington—
pee, the Duke of Wellington was ambitious—who doubted that
he was so? bad he asserted the contrary, not a man in England
would believe him; to charge the Duke of Wellington with
ambition was a noble charge ; ambition was a noble virtue ; bad
be not been ambitious be would never have conquered at We..
terioo, or been at this moment Prime Minister of England.
He bad charged the Duke of Wellington with being a dangerous
person. If there was any word in the whole article which was a
libel, this word was the one upon which the whole stress lay.
If the Jury convicted him, because he had called the Duke of
Wellington a dangerous person—it they, by their verdict, estab-
lished the doctrine that it was a libel to say that a Minister was
it dangerous person—then was there an end for ever to the
Liberty of the Press in England. It was upon this that the
lights and privileges of public discussion now depended. Upon
their verdict those rights must stand or fall. He contended
that every man had a right, if he thought so. to say that
any particular Minister was a dangerous man ; and, confident
that the Jury would also think au. be would leave that part of
the ease is their bands. Lest any advantage, however.
absuld be taken of him, he would read the libel through.
lino man was to be allowed to express his vial:mot a Minister, or
.• remark upon hie ascendancy at Court, or the frequency of his
=to his anvereigu—if the doctrine were to be established
no man had a right to speak upon these matters, thee would
then be no such thing as free discussion—there would be an sad,
owe and for ever, to the liberty of the press, Wawa ore law

were male for its protection ; for then no man could speak of a mi-
nister but la *terms of a slave. Gentlemen, said the defendant, I
have greatly told you that these are the first of a series of promo-
thous, instituted by the Attorney-General, to fetter the liberty of the
prep, and to crush the humble individual who now stands before
"GM I have read the libel to you, and I implore you to
give it your most dispassionate consideration, and to say whether
I have there written anything which I was not entitled to do, or
'whether I have used any expression calculated to bring the Go-
vernment into contempt. The charge is a serious one as regards
me, but it is of no consequence to the Duke of Wellington whether
lamor am set convicted. The result of this trial will not affect
his measures : my conviction wiU not reader him more popular,
nor will my acquittal take from him one vote, or one supporter to
his administration. If you convict me, however, you destroy my
character, you take away my liberty, and you ruin my fortune.—
In these circumstances I leave the case entirely in your hands;
and, as men upon your oaths, I confidently submit to you that it is
no libel.

The Arronew-Gninsin then replied at considerable length,
and having cooclnded kis gddress, as we reported yesterday,
Lord Twingeing summed up.
The Jury retired at twelve o'clock, and at half psis three re-
turned the following Veediet, which they read from a paper
:
We find the defendants Guilty of a libel of his Majesty, and
acquit them on the charge of libel on the Government. The Jury
are of opinion teat the libel was written under circumstances and
in times of great excitement, and therefore recommend the defen-
dants to the mercy of the Court."