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

•
i •

. '

~. 1
r

i

I
•
•
•

1

ii

LAW INTELLIGENCE, .

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, NOVEMBER rt.
THE KING V. RUSgELL.
Mr. CLARKE prayed the judgment of the Court on
Joseph Russell, who had been convicted at the War-
wickshire Assizes for the republication of an alleged
blasphemous Parody on the Liturgy of the Church of
England.
The prisoner was then placed before the Court;
after which,
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE read his Notes of the
• Trial, and added, that when the Jury returned a ver-
dict of Guilty against the defendant, they also re-
commended him to mercy. When called upon by
the Court, the defendant then put in several affida-
vits in extenuation. Some of these set forth, that he
was led into the republication by others, and that he
was not aware, at the time, of having acted contrary
to law.
There was also an affidavit put in on the part of the
prosecution, in which it was stated, that soon after
h:.; trial, the defendant had republished the Parody,
and prefixed it, under the title of a dedication, " Te
fire Shade of Freedom," a gross libel on the Magis-
tracy and Government of the Country. When this
affidavit was read,
The defendant called the attention of the Court to
a paragraph in the publication itself, and requested.
that it might be read. It was read accordingly, and,
contained the assertion of the defendant, as to the ne-
cessity of a strict inculcation of Christian principles
iu the minds of the people; and added, that, in con-.
sequence of his unwillingness to publish any thing
tending to bring religion into contempt, he had only
republished the political part of the Parodies.
' He then proceeded to address the Court, which he
did at some length, occasionally referring to some
v :ittcn documents 'which he held in his hand. He
b. ran by asserting that he had no evil intention in
doingthe act for which he had been convicted ; and
added, that he was led into it by the agency of atm-
ti:er person, and by some pecuniary embarrassments.
ie did not mean to complain of the verdict of the
Jury in his case; but he thought it rather ,ingular
that he should be so eagerly prosecuted for what had
already been declared by the verdict of a Jury to be
innocent. It was singular that the accessory should
be declared guilty, and the principal acquitted. Mr.
I!one had been acquitted for the publication of the
same Work for which he had been found guilty.—
Ise next advei ;ed to the great trouble and pecuniary
loss to which lie had been already put by the delays
which had taken place in bringing on his trial. He
had been 061i:zed to conic to London from Warwick-
shire duce or four times, and was also at considerable
expense and trouble in making inquiries into die cha-
racter and opinions of the Gentlemen who were re-
turned as Special Jurors for the trial of his case; as
he understood that he might, if he chose, strike off
certain names. Information on this subject he was
obliged to sack; for their Lordships knew, that in
pci!itical matters o,,inion was every thing. When, as
he had been led to believe, his trial was about to be
brought on, he was informed that he might go away,
a., it was not intended to go on with it at that time.
Ile was afterwards led to understand that it v ald
be dropped, and heard nothing more of it till the last
Summer Assizes, when he was unexpectedly brought
to trial. At that time only one of the Special Jury
was in attendance ; and though he might hire avoided
it if he pleased, ha prayed a tales. He was con-
victed, but he trusted that his Lordship (the Lord
Cl.ief Justice) had a recollection of the impression
which the whole of this cage seemed to have wade
upon the Jury, for they strongly recommended him
to mercy. That recommendation, lie had no doubt,
their Lordships would consider on the present occa-
sion. He also complained of the circumstance of bail
having been refused for him in Warwiekshirs, a short
time back, when he was charged with another libel ;
and of having the indictment removed into that Court,
at a time when it was known he was about to receive
sentence for another offence. • That, however, he was
sure their Lordships could not take into considera-
tion when passing upon him the sentence of the
Court. He further added, that he was but a very
poor man; that upon meeting certain losses in his
trade, he had delivered up the whole of his property
to satisfy his creditors, and that he had a wife apd
children to support.
The whole of his Address was delivered in such a
mild, unassuming, and submissive manner, as evi-
dently prddueed a favourable impression on the Court.
Mr. CLARKE replied in aggravation of punish-
ment, and contended that the defendant was not en-
titled to aivi eniency, having republished the Parody
at a time when he must have known, from the opi-
nion of the Learned Judge who had presided at the
first trial, that it was a gross libel. He had also re-
published a part of it, after his own trial, with a pre-
face equally libellous.
Their Lordships then consulted together for a short
time, after which
Mr. Justice BAYLEY proceeded to pronounce the
sentence of the Coma. He began by observing, that
the defendant was there to receive the sentence of the
Court. After having been convicted by a Jury of
his Country, of publishing a gross libel ; and as the
Indictment had charged it, not only a libel on the
Liturgy. a part of the Holy Service of the Church,
hut also against the Houses of Lords and Commons, ,
by representing to the People that they were op-
pressively governed : after reading the whole of the
Work, there was no man who seriously reflected for
a moment, who could doubt that it *as a gross libel,
and one of a nature which it was the duty of the
Court towards the Public to put down ; after the
reading of that production, there was no one who
nr:glit hear, in Church, the excellent Prayer of which
it was a gross and libellous parody, whose attention
might not be distracted and diverted to thoughts
which should not be entertained in such a place.-
71:e defendant had observed, that it was singular,
- the acqUittal of Hone, that he should be tried
same Work ; but it should be remembered,
fury, in every case, should only go upon the
before them;. and if the argument were raid
, would hold equally where a conviction had
on the first trial, and an acquittal iu another:
Jury were not to be told in the one case, that
ought.to condemn because another Jury had
guilty ; not ought they to be reminded to re-
verdict of not guilty, because another Jury

. . '

. fa:f the
rtn:2
that a Ju
I'l
evidence
t) at all, it
ensued of
for the Ji
they ou2
found gu
a ye