The Statesman.
London, England, 1821-11-26 00:00:00

which cannot essay be forgotten—A* was sent for 121
mouths to Newgate, and was obliged -to pay a consi•
derail* fine besides. In the present ease we know the
object these-persons have in traducing private character
—in'serving a political object of tome sort or other ;
they thorrghtthemsdianctifies the means.; hut the judp
' meat of this day will teach them otherwise. This I
libel, however, was only introduced amongst a string
of others; and I suppose they thought, if they
were justified in attacking the most illustrious female
in the kingdom, it was a more venial offence to attack
and scandalise every other. But what a condition
would mankind be reduced to if this system were any
longer tolerated ? 'Suppose it was the object of any
individuals to write downs particular character, and
for that purpose to select (for scandalous notoriety)
all the petunia who hewed him or her any respect ;
and what they failed to produce by malice they might
effect by slander:—Suppose also, another set of indi-
'Woe's to take an opposite course—and equally malign
all those opposed to the character they supported—
what a capital employment would-it not be for the
Biitish Press !! Then we should have the defendants
on one side harrowlog up the dead—and A. B. and
O. on the other perhaps doing the same thing. But,
I sincerely hope, that the sentence of to-day will have
the salutary effect of preventing so much evil. It is
impossible that the author of this libel can have the
feeling of a gentleman, though his edecaticia may be
that of one. Suppose there were even colour fur such
a charge, was there no respect to be shewn to the chil-
elrentathe illustrious mother, an example of virtue,
and beyond all impeachment?—What—to publish
mach a libel merely...because he did not know it was
*false? No attempt could be more base, even•to gain
the wickedest object by the wickedearmeans. There
Was no personal malice on the part of the prosecutors
in this case; but they felt it their duty to call for pu-
nishment on those persons who lent themselves to the
commission of every species of crime—perhaps not
!very species of crime hat every species of this
nature ? To sbew the wickedness of the course the
defendants so long pursued, suppose at the.other side
a.paper said, we will attack every man who goes to
Court; we will prevail on his servants to cheat him ;
his tradesmen to plunder him; why, even here, the
feeling could Dot be half so base, as that which your
Lordships are called on to punish this day. The de-
fendants here said, we will go where malice takes re-
fuge and seeks its envenomed shafts; and then we will
sally forth and speed them at the molt virtuous living,
or the most worthy dead This is the eonfessed view
of the defendants. Two of them enjoy the fruits of
this trade in scandal, and the third is intimately con-
cerned with them. I know in this case your Lordships
31411 feel it a ditty to the public to take care that the
aentence shall operate to prevent persons who lend
their aid to such atrocities, from sheltering themselves
under the plea of no malice—of not being the author
of the libel, and therefore making an endeavour to
avoid all punishment. The author, you may depend,
is all this tithe behind the curtain, and will of course
pay whatever fine your Lordships may inflict on those
who served his interests and his passions. The pu-
nishment, however, would be incomplete, if another
merely paid. No, the object of punishment on these
defendants is, not only that the author should, for
the future, find nobody to assist him, but that' those
who did, should be made to suffer for it in their • own
persons. I shall now say no more. But few occa-
sions have arisen to me in which I was called on to
press for a severity of judgment ; nor should I do so
sow, if I were not satisfied that the deepest malignity
lay at the bottom of this disgraceful transaction."
The Sottcmoa-OutanaL stated, that in Mrs. Fits-
lierbert's ease an apology had been made, which in-
creased the slander.
Mr. SCARLET/ said, it was only owing to the
Learned Solicitor's discretion that the defendants were
not placed in a similar situation.
Mr. Justice BATLEY, after the Court Lad delibe-
rated sonic time, delivered the judgment. Addressing
the defendants, the Learned Judge said, they were to
receive judgment for a libel. To make a, newspaper
a vehicle for private or public slanders is most repre-
hensible ; but when it is so made on the character of
one who is dead, and on that point so deeply affecting
her honour, it is the bitterest pang that can be inflict-
ed on her surviving friends. Two of you state your ig-
norance of the nature of the paragraph at the time of
its insertion ; and it would have been but prudent on
the part of the other, if, when seeing it, he bad re-
monstrated with the Editor, or had held some commu-
nication respecting it with the Proprietors. It would
have been wise if lie had preserved the manuscript, so
that, in case of necessity, the real author might have
been come at and punished, if he deserved it. 'The
Editor gave us no information, neither was lie given
up, on the application of the plaintiffs, to ascertain
the author of the libel. The affidavits 'alluded to the
general system of managing the paper; but nothing
was said in them, why no subsequent crotch was made
for the manuscript, after the application of Mr. liar.
suer. It was most incorrect that thi Seilutetiit should
be destroyed, because it prevented further inquiry
from throwing any light upon the subject. The affi-
davits proceeded to say. that a new editioawas pub-
lished, with the exceptionable paragraph expunged,
but be should have been much more satisfied, if that
were done without any application from *pother quar-
ter. No man who felt for the "interests of society
could tolerate such Newspapers as dealt in private slan-
der ; it was even far worse in this case, for the at-
tack was made on oattwho was gone to answer for what
she might have dime, and they might allowher ashes to
have slept in peace. The sentence of the Court for the
offence, is, that you, Robert Thomas Weaver, pay a
fine of 1001., W. Shacks'', and T. Arrowomith, to pay
1001. each. and be imprisoned for the period of nine
months in the King's Bench, and at the expiration
give security for five jests, in 50W.. each. and two
sureties of 2501.

Tilt WINO V. JOHN wzr.Lralini.:
This was an indictment arising ant of the late con.
tested election for Chester. The defendant. who was
Mayor of that city. was charged with acting corrupt-
ly in his office.
It appeared that, at the late election for Chester.
(the candidates being on owe sidetLord Beigrare and
lien. Grosvenor. and on the other Sir (grey Egerton
sad Mr. Towasheod.) the Mayor was applied• to 'by
the Apnea party to snake 44 freemen. The usage.
of Chester had bees se admit Moses daring polls;
bat die Mq is Aegis" that be sated by the advice

r