The Statesman.
London, England, 1821-11-14 00:00:00

THE STATESMAN►

is my defence, and if you think proper to decide that
an Englishwoman has no right to say that which is
euential to her defence, I must abide by the conse-
quences of your decision."—l only wish to state these
facts, that It may not be said that I stopped this wo-
man in her defence. I was most anxious, and pain-
fully so, sot to interrupt her, and that she should
bring forward every thing, consistent with the decency
to be observed in a Court of Justice, which could is
any degree serve her on her trial, or prove her inno-
cence. In one case, it should be observed, that, she
was defended by Counsel—the very next cue which
followed, bat not in this, because she must have
known that she was about to make a defence
which every Gentleman at the Bar would think him-
self disgraced in making, because he must have made
himself the organ of uttering the grossest sedition
and the foulest blasphemy. I thought it my duty to
prevent that which I was quite satisfied then was in-
tended to be made the vehicle of sedition and blab-
phemy, under the colour of a defence ; but I was most
anxious that she should have every opportunity of
making her defence in the proper sense of that word ;
and the Jury concurred with me in that anxiety, and
wished that she should expunge every thing that was
offenstve in her defence, in the hope that she might
be able to give an effectual answer to the charge on
which she was indicted.

Mr. COOPIR.—Tbe Learned Judge bas bad the
gudness to state what occurred en the occasion, and
bas added several cireorostances which do not appear
in the defendant's affidavit. but as far as it goes• it
seems to be concurrent with what the Learned Jodge
has stated. I still submit, that upon the facts u
stated. the defendant is entitled to a new trial. I
wish, however, in consequence of something which
his Lordship has said. that I may be permitted to say
one word in explanation, because it relates in some
degree to myself. The Learned Judge has said that
the defendant had a friend in Court. I presume he
alludes to me, from the circumstances of my being
Counsel for the defendant in the case which followed.

Mr. Justice BEAT—I did not allude to you Mr.
Cooper. I said she had a friend io Court. You quite
misunderstood me if you thought I alluded in the
slightest degree to yon.

The CHIEI4 Ull rica—Yon misunderstood my brother
Beet.

Mr. Cooent—l beg to say, that if I bad been ap-
plied to by the defendant, I should not have inter-
fered. I was not retained in that case. I had hot
been consulted in it. In the case in which I appeared
for the defendant, I had been regularly retained, and
I felt it not only my duty, but I should have consi-
dered myself unworthy the station I have the honour
to hold, if I had refused to come forward and defend
her or any other person, whatever might be the crime,
to the best of my humble ability; holding it as a
sacred maxim of the English law, that until guilt be
distinctly proved. the accused are to be considered as
innocent. I coesider it the bounden duty of every
man who wears this gown, to come forward when
called upon, to offer his best assistance to those who
are under accusation, and I should hold any man in
utter contempt, who, like children at a play, con-
founding the actor with the character represented,
sboild confound the advocate with his client. To
such a man I should give no answer, but tree. ltba
With silent contempt. Then, my Lords. I say tbisswp
it appears that whatever were the Judge's motives
(and 1 believe the Judge was actuated by the best
motives,) his Lordship, though he might be justified
in stopping the defence in a qualified manner, could
not be justified in stopping it altogether. The com-
plaint is, that the defendant was 'stopped altogether.
The CRIEF JERTICE—Does your affidavit suggest
what other matter there was in the defence which it
would have been proper to submit to the Jury ? Does
it state what particularity, what other matter ought to
have been submitted to the Jury ?
Mr. COOPER replied that it did not. His position
was, that the defendant ought not to have been stopped
altogether. If she offended, she ought to hive been
fined, as in the case of the King e. Davison, in which
it should seem that the authority of a Judge at .11Tiai
Prise to fine a defendant on his trial, had been esta-
blished, but not stopt altogether. She should have
been warned to be more cautions, and take the conse-
quences of any neglect of such warning.
Mr. Justice BATLEY observed, that the mere impo-
sition of a fine would not afford any adequate means
of preventing the mischievous consequences of the
offence. The offensive matter might be insinuated
into the minds of the young persons present, and no
fine could rectify such an e►il. The punishment of
the offending individual who thinks proper to utter
blasphemy and sedition in a Court of Justice, cannot
rectify the mischief to the minds of the auditors.
Mr. COOPER submitted that this doctrine might be
carried to the extent of depriving the advocate at the
bar of the privilege of speech—of making a bold,
fearless, and legitimate defence for his client.-
The C►►ter Threrce—No such consequence can fel-
low if you 'look to the whole of what has keen done In
Chit case. ' •

Mr. COOPER reiterated his argument, that the de-
fondant Ought not to have been stopt altogether.
The Cum JUSTICE observed, that the defeadist
ought to havisuggested in her adidavitsornethiag env-
tained is her defence, which, bad she been permitted to
proceed, would have had the slightest erect is her fa-
favour upon the minds of the Jury. It could not be
supposed that the utterance of vehement blasphemy
could have availed her any thing. She knew the nature
of the points, which the Learned Judge most properly
could not suffer to be read.

Mr. COOPER—The knowledge of what was proper
for her defence must depend upon her own opinion.
The CHIEF JULTICE-.—We bare quite lost our CORI.
mon understandings. •
Mr. Coona..—No, my Lord, far from that. Your
Lordships possess very uncommon and extraordinary
understaidings—the very reverse of what your Lord-
ship is pleased to suggest. The Learned Counsel said
be had nothing more to observe. He.insisted that the
affidavit afforded sufficient ground for granting a new
trial. Beyond all question, no gentleman at the bar.
lent his assistance to the defendant ; no gentleman
interfered ; no gentleman volunteered his assistance ;
and proscribed as the defendant was by all parties, it
was not to beleitpected from human nature, that any
body would come forward on her behalf..
Mr. JustiVelliesT-1. think yon haic taken a very
wrong. estimate of the bar of this country. I ven-
ture to assert, without the hazard of contradiction.

that there is tot a man at the bar that would not have
most cheerfelly given his advice and mistime., bad
it been asked.

Mr. PLATT interposed, and begged to observe, that
he himself bad gone out of Court to tender his hum-
ble assistance to the defendant, but it was declined.
Mr. COOPER said he was not aware of this circum-
stance, which reflected to much credit upon his Learned
Friend, or be should not have alluded to this topic. He
concluded by submitting, that u the defendant bad
been stopt altogether, instead of being suffered to pro-
ceed at the peril of such pecuniary lines as might be
imposed upon her, she was entitled to a new trial.
MT.JUSTICE BAYLIT--.-DOSS she state that the de-
fence was prepared by herself?

Mr. COOl9lR—Sh; does not.
The CHIMP Jvrrica—Does she even swear that she
knew the contents of the defence ?

Mr. COOPER.—She does not t but the presumption
is, that she must have known its contents.
The Curie JUSTICE.—The struggle in the present
case is manifestly this—that a person charged with
the publication of a blasphemous libel, shall be al-
lowed openly, and in a Court of Justice, to utter, or
cause to be uttered, as much matter of the same kind
as any officious friend of the accused shall think 6t
and proper for him or her to utter with freedom. That
is, that the Court of Justice shall be made the theatre
for the publication of blasphemy and sedition. That
is the struggle, most unquestionably. Looking at all
the circumstances of this case as now disclosed, 1
think the Learned Judge did perfectly right.% the
course be adopted. It is not suggested in this case
that the defendant was prevented from uttering any
thing that was material for the consideration of the
Jury. A Judge is bound to put a stop to the utter-
ance of blasphemy and sedition in the Court in which
he preside!, and if a defendant, under pretence of de-
fending himself or herself, thinks proper to make the
sanctuary of justice a theatre fur blasphemy, the
Judge would depart from his duty If he did not put
a stop altogether to such a defence.
Mr. Justice BATLEY expressed his perfect concur-
rence in, and approbation of, what the Learned Judge
had done. lie hoped the time would never arrive
when a defendant on trial would be prevented from
stating every thing freely and without restraint which
should tend to his exculpation. '1 his was not such a
case. A Gentleman of experience and ability hail
offered his assistance to the defendant, which she
thought proper to decline; and therefore she had no
reason to complain of want of advice. The language
of the defendant on the trial was quite sufficient to
call for the interposition of the Learned Judge ; and
as she did not think fit to conform to the restraint im-
posed upon her, he was bound to stop what she called
her defence.

Mr. Justice HoLunn) also concurred in the pro.
priety of stopping the defendant in the career she had
prescribed for herself.
Mr. Justice BesT said, that having *fed what had
occurred on the occasion, he should take no part in the
decision of the Conn.—Rule refused.