Star.
London, England, 1810-11-23 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

•
•-• COURT 'OF KING'S BENCH.—Nov. 2e.
THE LINO V. HARVEY AND FISHER.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL moved for the judgment
of the Court on Thomas Harvey and John Fisher.
The information against the defendants was read
by the Cki k. It charged the two defendants, the for-
imer of whom was the printer, and the latter the pub-
lisher of the newspaper called The Day, with print-
lag and publishing in their paper, of the Sth of April
last, a 'Scandalous, malicious, and seditious libel against
the rui:itary force of this country. The publication
in question irnfessci to give an account of the pro-
ceedings in the neighbourhood of Piccadilly, during
Saturday and Sunday, the 6th and 7th April last.—
The reading of the Riot Act it stated, " acted as a
signal for military execution, and in a few minutes
the Horse Guards, with the most inhuman violence,
charged an unarmed Ansi unresis:ing people." Many
of the populace, according to this statement, sought
for safety in lanes and private passages, but the snl-

Biers seemed actuated by a wish to shed human blood.

The jaded appearance too; of the soldiers, the next
- morning, and their swords stained with the bl od of
an injured people, plainly shewed -the obduracy of
their hearts, &c. &c. On this Information the defen-
dants ali6wed judgment to so against them by default.
On the part of the prosecution there were no affida-
vits fled.
: The defendant Harvey filed an affidavit in extenu-
ation, in which he stated, that the affairs of the paper
were managed by a Committee of fifteen Proprietors,
by whom it was ordered that the publication should
at all times take rlace at six o'clock in the morning.
The person employed to give a fair and accurate re-
port of the proceedings in the neighbourhood of Pic-
cadilly; during the period in question, did not wive
at the offiCe till past one in thil;.morning ; he wrote
his'accitunt on small slips of paper, which were dis-
tributed among the 'compositors as they were written,
without the defendant having.had any opportunity of
kiertiii4thetii, nor did he actually peruse the article
till *in day, when he felt extreme sorrow and sur-
prise to find it so very objectionable, the writer of
it being a person who had been employed in a news-
piperfOr several years, and one who, he understood,
might have been trusted.'
.The defendant then felt,
apd still did feel extreme sorrow and contrition for
the °tete of which he had, been guilty. He had a
wifearid eight children, the eldett of whom was under
13 Years of age, dependanfon him for support, and he
threw himself' on the compassion of the Court.
,Mr. Fisher's affidavit also bore, that he was corn-
pUtely ignorant of the-contents or nature of she pub-
lication till after it had appeared ; so much, however,
did. he disapprove it, that he caused it to be omitted
out of another paper published n the Monday even-
ing, called of which he is one of the proprietors, the
article in question having been intended for insertion
in that paper also.
An affidavit was also filed by Mr. Collier, the At-
,l
torney for the defendants, stating that previous to the
present prosecution the defendants had offered to the
conductors of the prosecution to give rJp the name of
the author, anti also the manuscript o£ the article in
question. •
The ATTQRKEY-GENERAL 'said the present was
without any exception the most wicked and libelous
publication to which he had ever felt it to be his duty
to call the attention of that Court; and it was for the
defendants to shew why a punishment proportioned to
its enormity should not be visited on them. In this
respect the affidavit last read, from which it appear.
ed that the defendants had offered to give up the au-
thor, and the manuscript copy of the libel, could little
avail them. He wished it to be known, (known in-
deed, he believed it was'thotigli the reverse was pre-
tended) that the giving .up' the author was no excuse
for the printer and- Publisher. All the ill they could
do they had already done;—they had given the libel
' to' the public—and it was only because they feared
that a just punishment was abtut to fall upon them-
selves, that they latterly endeavoured to turn it
over upon others. He was far from thinking such
conducts justification, or even an extenuation. The
other two affidavits whiCh bad been read, were by the
defendants themselves, the one the printer, and the
other the publisher, and one of the 1300 proprietors
of this paper, it being divided into so many shares.—
He did expect, as these affidavits were pointed in ex-
pressing the immediate contrition of both defendants,
for the offence they had committed, that they would
have closed with narratlng. the paragraph in which,
in •their next, or some following publication, they
had expreaed that contrition to the public. For such
paragraphYhowever, he looked in vain : not that he
thought that would have justified the defendants,
though, the having adopted such a course might have
shown that %they hid been speedily avinlcened to a
sense of their error, the' total absence? hoWever, of
e'very eiriiienCe of thik kind, was sufficiently demon-
strati vehow insincere was the contritinn they now pro.
ant:sire-I tolikve felt andif these defendants would
turn their attention to what they had published
0/0 d'ayiaftii the pithlitation of the libel in question,
liiNtis..ssAtied they Would repent having said in their
that' they felt contrition at the time. He
shetild tikiSitiic-kred to considers who these persons •
Were e • deferidanti had libilled,'llll4 how nn-
aereiiiiiii thy were of :IA treittnieit. Avery per-'
snit. sbhit'beard him niusr astari,• in what state a
Part of thii great city was at the time
to Whfrjh the rrtiel in. question refitted. The military
had neiessari* been called out on 'the occasion, to
the &Charge elan filisinne and disagreeable duty:-.
They ionid not 6 itniceired as at all interested in
the.serVici, nor could' they expect defy reeourPenee or
alvautagi to themselies'toresuh from 11;their Tote
• ribitaid must; ai se fromTrott a conicirinsniti oT Alschars--
Ittitheir duty te' 'their own credit, ail' to the sans-
&cubit of Oh' kat (4. citizens All 'Ad heard Min,
iEie bellested„, tikeW the forbeartiae. thoie
had .ohgtiet.: They suffered' dierirselvei to be bi-
salted, naji eihn in be. tired 'ctn.; atidroinded, before
they resisted in then. oVin- defence, inlf 1* the pubic
diatety. He hardircay, thtit wan i hind:l'4ok!
- .the preser.t eh aYge. IlteAttorney-Gti7ftii4 thin
proceeded to read the Pirag.iah's in the pubtteatlOti•
which viliaPartictilarli oagjettionable. Wit it to Si
etiellireir, Wetted, thattlitis:treitary of thii countm
it* Potetkeie et thernieVt 4,4% were more pecitliaa'y
otii.4 fellow citigenc- dined be charged with raking
plea:sure sheddint thi Octoct Af o'ur (hint' sobkets-
it such an abominable charge wesc allotied to'. past,

and, of course,- from reiTlaSiing tintonliadicted; to
be supposed not capably of contradiction, all the
bonds between them and the public must be at once
loosened ; or, if false, -and still •uncontradicted and
unpunished, what inducement could remain to the
military of this oountry to-discharge their duty ? On
the rest of the publication, in which the appearance
of the soldiers, on the following morning, is rive-
seated, their swords stained with the blond of an in-
jured people, so as to plainly shew their obdurate
hearts, the Attorney-General thought it unnecessary
for him to say a word : nothing in his power to-say
could add to its malignity ; their Lordships would
look to it. They would look to the soldiery, they
would look to the people of this country; and they
would award such a measure of punishment in this
case as should seem to•them to do equal justice to all.

Mr. MARRYATT addressed the Court in extenuation
on the part of Mr. Harvey, the printer. He admitted
that the defendants were legally responsible, but con-
tended, that in the circumstances in which they were
placed, they could not be said to be guilty of a mali-
cious intention, and so could not be malicious libel-
lers. They had no reason to distrust the person em-
ployed to give a true and accnra-e account of the
proceedings alluded to in the article. They had
ther of them an opportunity to peruse, nor, in point
c,f fact, had they perused the publication, which he
was ready to admit was a gross libel ; not being cog-
nisent of its contents, therefore, he submitted, that
they could not be held to be deliberate offenders.—
The Attorney-General had said it was no excuse in
such a case to give up the author. It surely was not,
but, undoubtedly it was an extenuation of the offence,
being all the reparation which it was in their power
to offer. The fact, too, that the same publication
had been excluded from another paper, published at
the same office, and in which these defendants were
concerned, afforded the best evidence of the defen-
dants contrition, being given on the spot, and at the
moment. Their Lordships would weigh all these cir-
cumstances, and they would also take into their son.
sideration that the defendant, Harvey, had a wife and
eight children, the eldest of them not 13 years of age,
dependant on him for support.
Mr. READER, for the defendant Fisher, admitted,
that if the author had been standing here for judg-
ment, he should have found it difficult to say any
thing in his defence. The case of Fisher, how-
ever, he submitted, was very different. He was, no
doubt, liable, but it was for the Court to say, how
far his mind was concerned. The Attorney-General,
with that dexterity for which he' was so much distin-
guished, and by which he contrived to turn every ,
thing against persons standing. here for judgment,
contended, that the offer of giving up the author was
not even an extenuation of the defendant's guilt. If
they had done so, however, would he not have
adduced that as a strong circumstance against them,
and have alledged that it was a proof of their conti-
nuing to persevere in their offence.
Mr. Justice BAILEY asked, had the defendants apo-
logized is their japer?
" Mr. READER was not prepared to assert that they
had. He wished they had done so—but though a
man had not &tie all that he might and ought to
have done, still'it would be hard to deny him credit
for what he actually did.
Lord ELLENNOROUGH ordered that both defendants
be committed to the Jail of Newgate, and be brought
up for judgment on the last day of Term.