The Statesman.
London, England, 1823-08-15 00:00:00

THE .ZTATES MAN.

professed to be an explanation, but wet, in fact, an ithil
statement, calculated to irritate the feelings of the f°l3°'
cattle, sod confirm the impression conveyed by the t rinse
publication. it appeared in the form of a letter -I'l° to
the Editor, and was signed " QUil." it was ',lcier the
head " Captain Hackie and Sir A. Wilson." 'the Editor,
however, had thought proper to prefix to thl letter an ex-
planation, in which be treated the former icier as a squib
worthy of attention only for its wit and honour; be fur-
ther added, that he did not hesitate to deohre, that as ap-
plied to an individual, the irony and sarcasm were intole-
rable. The spirit of the letter whir followed was very
different, for it threatened the publication of some further
exploits of the Medical Knight, in ,:ase be had recourse to
law proceedings. But thellthel vent further; the Editor
concludes his prefatory paragrapi• by an offer to name the
author, in case the commander if tbe.Chepstow Yeomanry
(Captain Buckle), would answer in the negative certain
questions then proposed. The substance of these queries
was, had not he (Captain Buckle) thanked every individual
of the corps for their conduct against the rioters, with the
exception of one individual? and had not a resolution been
adopted by the corps to expel Sir A Wilson, for his con•
duet on that occasion ?'Phis ormed all the explanation and
redress which the prosecutro obtained, and which lie (Mr.
Adam) did not hesitate to call a malicious aggravation of
the first offence. The writer well knew that Captain Buckle
would never condescend to answer his queries, and, there-
fore, proceeding upon that assurance, he contrived to give
point and efficacy to his forner attack. Besides, at the
very moment that he was giving birth to the second libel,
the defendant was in possession of testimonials, according
to his own acknowledgement, to the excellent conduct of
the prosecutor as a soldier and a gentleman. The defend-
ant on being closely pressed, refused to make known the
author of the libel, but what did the Gentlemen of the
Jury suppose he offered as a satisfaction to the prosecutor?
He offered his columns as a medium by which the prosecu-
tor was at liberty to publish any explanation be thought
necessary. What retribution was this to the insulted feel-
ings of a gentleman? It might be stated on the part of
the defendant,that there was some truth in this insinuation,
that a resolution to expel this gentleman was agreed to. If
any document of this nature existed, he (Mr. Adam) bad
only to state that the Commander of the corps, Captain
Buckle was no party to it, as he had already registered his
opinion as to the good conduct of the prosecutor, and that
it must be a partial and unjust determination by a
small part of the corps. He was sure that the usual topic
of declamation upon occasions of this nature, would rot
now be neglected, namely, the form of proceeding. Why
not bringan action, it would be asked, that you might allow
the defendant to stand or fall by the truth ofhis statement?
What ! would be hear the absurd doctrine repeated that
day, that a man whose character is smacked by the publi-
cation of an anonymous slander, was to be taken to admit
the truth of the calumny, or proceed by way of action.—
If such a notion were to be acted on, no man in society
was safe. He was quite sure of hearing a beautiful eulogy
on the liberty of the press, from the Counsel for the de-
fendant. The Learned Sergeant (Mr. Sergeant Pell) who
appeared for the defendant, would no doubt be quite happy
on that favourable subject. But let not the Jury forget
that the freedom of the press was never brought so much
into jeopardy, as when perverted from the high and com-
prehensive subjects which formed its proper employment
—it was degraded into an engine of private defamation.
The Isublication by the defendant was admitted, awl put
in.
Mr. John lifuggeridge was then called to prove, that
the prosecutor was a Member of the Chepstow yeo-
manry, he stated, he himself was not a Member of the

corps.
Mr. Sergeant PELL said he should then admit the prose-
cutor to have been a member of the corps.
The libel being read by the Clerk,
Mr. Sergeant Pst.t. then addressed the Jury on the part
of the defendant. The Jury would not fail at the ontset to
be struck with the singular circumstance, that the witness.]
Mr. Mitggeridge, who WU to give evidence upon matters.
connected with the foundation of this libel, did not belong
to the Chepstow Volunteers. He (Sergeant Pell) admitted
without hesitation what that witness was called to prove.
because he found be could not, elicit from such a person,
certain facts, that would be most material for the considera-
tion of the Jury. He wished, therefore, that the Jury
would not lose sight of the impression that the prosecutor
did not choose to call a single witness, who was in a situa-
tion to illustrate the history of those events, which the de-
fendant was charged with falsifying. The question which
they had to try was one, partly of fact, and partly of law.—
The Libel Act authorized the Judge to state his opinions
on the law—but the Jury are to decide on the whole mat-
ter. Here the Jury were particularly called open to exer-
ci-e the discretion entrusted to them. For Les own part,
be was of op;nion, that the appearance of a little squib in a
periodical print, which did not go to affect moral character,
however pointed it might be, and however it might contri-
bute to raise a temporary laugh against the subject, should
not form a sufficient reason, with a prudent man, to stand.
forward in the character of a prosecutor. What bad this
gentleman fur object in bringing forward the present pm-
secution? Did he stand in need of the testimony of the
Jury to his character for courage? If so, let him have the
verdict. He sought for more—he sought for the punishment
of the editor of a public paper, for the publication of cer-
tain facts. With respect to those facts, was lie not entitled
to say, that this prosecutor had not the courage to stand in
the witness's box, and encounter an examination He
have been in the front of the battle—the van was the pro-
per place fur a courageous military man—he was perhaps
in Court, and might be found in the rear. Why in the
rear? Because this military man was likewise a me-
dical man, an.l the rear was the place they might hope
to find hina—(A laugh). This was the first time In
his professional life, he had ever known a Jury called
on to pronounce, whether a gentleman was a man
of courage or not. He was now entitled to ask, why the
prosecutor had not proceeded by action,and for this reason:
—whenever indictments for libels were preferred, the ex-
cuse generally was, that that form of process was chosen
which would enable the party aggrived to appear as a wit-
, ness. Here the form of indictment was followed, but the
excuse was wanted—no prosecutor appeared in the box—no
witness to face an investigation into the facts. It bad been
assumed on the other side, that if a resolution to expel this
gentleman from the corps had been agreed to, it must he
partial and unjust. As well might he (Sergeant Pell) as-
sume that as the prosecutor was not now a member of the
corps, a resolution to that effect had been adopted, and that
it was neither partial nor unjust. Was he to put a witness
Sato the box to prove the existence of such a resolution ?
Was he to afford his Learned Friend the opportunity of a
,second time indulging his feelings by expatiating on the
liberty of the press, a subject which seemed to kindle in
ishlriebn hereditary animation, fur he was the son of one
!Wits was the tried friend of Mr. Fox, and assisted that
+Statelisnun is. the completion of his celebrated Bill, which
till. (Sergeant Pell) held,to be the second Palladium of En-
glish rights. (There was some disposition in the body of
the Collette •tpplaud. Mr. Justice Burrough repressed
tbelvelitig; observing that they must go elsewhere to do
that.) • Abuireit of the power of the press would sometimes
jr,ti
*