The Statesman.
London, England, 1818-08-11 00:00:00

WI

We insert the follorolog ,
Paper. merely for the purpose of having it contra.
dieted : it is better that a charge, which it note to
spread, helmer slowly, should at once be brought
before the bar of the Lowden Public, that it may
meet with a satisfactory vegetation:—'a Mr. Jestice
Park, who presided at the Crewa Bae, closed the
proceedings on Wednesday afternoon, leaving three
causes, vit. the Kiel v. Crapp, the King e. the
Mayer of Saltash, and She King v. Swan, to stand
over to the nest Assizes, to the no small disappoint.
Went of the parties ceeterned, who bee attended
with their witnesses, at a considerable espence; and
who will now have to endure all the pain of sespence,
until March or April neat; whew they will be obliged
to attend at Launceston, which will greatly increase
the espence, being at a greater distance. The As-
sizes for Somerset do not commence until Monday ;
so that there was no want of time to go through the
business at Bodmin. We have heard a cause image-
ed for his Lordship's abrupt departure, which we can
hardly suppose well-founded. It is said, be had en-
gaged to dine with. Sir Thomas Dyke Acland. et his
seat at Killerton, neer Dieter, on Thursday, and that
he left Sodmin at five o'clock on Wedneeday.even.
ing. for the purpose of keeping his appointment:tr.—
( West Briton, Cornmall Pauper.)
William Hopwood was convicted at the late Sans.
bury Assizes for stealing a sack of oats, and sen-
tenced by Judge Park to 18 months' imprisonment
and hard labour ; but immediately on the sentence
being pronounced, be bad the effrontery-(as the Re.
port says) to direct en impertinent question to his
Lordship respecting the wager for his labour, which
he wished to know how he was to recover. The
Learned Judge instantly ordered bit sentence not
to be recorded, and altered it to that of seven years'
trasportation. It appears by this statement, that al-
though 18 months' imprisonment was considered so
adequate punishment for that transgression of thei
public law upon which the mars was arraigned, yes
for the offence of making an impertinent remark to a
Judge, the criminality of which is neither declared
by Statute, nor otherwise recognised among indictable
delinquencies, the offender was sentenced to seven
years' transportation—a punishment so diapropor-
tinned to Iris offence, as to cause an involuntary
shudder upon every one who peruses the state.
mega. The crime of impertinence. for which this
very severe punishment was awarded, is not of an
very dangerous a nature to society as to require
the hasty and heavy judgment with which it was
visited ; and we trust that his Lordship will be con-
tent to review the case, Ind limit the punishment to
that amount which he had hitoseif pronounced as be.
log commensurate with the clime for which alone the
the coon ices indicted. Ilia Lordship's irritability
was the 'object of animadversion too years since in
a letter pubtistred at Eseter, signed " Russzza.;"
and upon that occasion, from a reverence of the pure
and blameless manner in which the laws of this coon.
try are administered, we undertook, as our Readers
any recollect. an humble defence of his Lordship's
conduct. It is, therefore, with pain that we notice
the present occurrence; but as it bee etched a strong
sensation among many very respectable characters,
who are about to interfere on behalf of the convict,
it becomes oar duty to bring the matter plainly before
Readers, that this singular case may be borne in mind,
and the protest of the Public voice timely recorded
on the occasion.—( Taunton Courier.)
11

_ right _ _ Eng:.
*Win
freely discessing the conduct Of public moil, thin is
no privilege more impootatit be useful thin that Of
etposing the vices of privite individuals, after the
same shall be folly proved before some colispeitiet
authetity; If the first of HAs rights be essential to
the preservation of oast political liberties, the ieeoild
must be equally so, in protecting the honest pail of
society agatnstthe deigns of the fraudulent, the bale,
and the infamous. Political anidisdiersion, condiete
ed by a proper degree of good dente aod temper, ai
well as boldness, operates as a powerful check aped
the rulers and legislaton of a coubiryi While a faith:
fel history of &Amok occurrenCeieonfilied throogli
the Public Johrisale, not only teethes people bow
to distinguish gond from bad mere, but idtimidates 1
litany against the commission of crimes; Sod even
compels some people to be honest. 'rheas tied species
of rights—the right of political diseussion, And the
right to publish the troth respecting indiviituals,
whenever the cohdoct of such 61'14411.111i tweed!, a
subject of betel enquiry—Aave been eterilsed in En g.
land for upwards of a century, and bate diisittguills:
ed ours from all other nations in Edrope. It ii
chiefly to these rights we may consider ridrselies
&bird for our freedom sod our greatness ; and al;
though Memberless attempts have been snide Oy cur.
rapt Statesmen and Judges to curtail and destroy
them, they have still, through the virtue and drin•
sips, of Joliet, been presented for us. Indeed Ike'
limits of political disression, and the distinctions be-
tween freedom and licentiousness, are stow so well
understood, that he most he a very ignorant and in•
'temperate writer, who subjects himself to such
prosecution at the suit of the Attorney-General, as
Shall bring down spots him the conviction of a Jery
,
min the sentence of a Judge. At present therefore
;we have not much reason to complain of the etisting
practice in criminal prosecutions for libels ; because,
whatever Judges may say, the Juries, resting en the
provision of Mr. Fox's salutary 13111, knew how to
think and act for themselves. Bat the Press of the
'enuetry, after having successfully held not swims
ehe•strong arm of power, has lately been subjected j
to a new species of attack; insignificant certainly in
its appearance, but not less terrible in its con.
sequencer. Like one of our great naval bulwarks,
that told gallantly beaten till, and conquered a
powerful enemy, it is now assailed by vermin which,
if 1101 speedily •stitpated, will eat up every plank of
which it it composed. We contend as we mean to
prove hereafter, that the liberty of publishing those
proceedings wherein the misconduct of individuals
happens to be disclosed by legal proof, is just as ne-
cest•ry to the safety of the Press, as the privilege of
aoitnadvertiog on the conduct et State Ministers; that
they are both inseparably connected with each other;
and that if, by any forced construction of Lawyers,
or under the hypocritical pretence of preserving peace
and good order in society, the one could ever be done
away, no Journalist could ever after venture to publish
what he telt to be the vaunt respecting public men
or public measures.
Our attention is particularly directed to this great
question, in consequence of some recent proceedings
that have taken place in Courts of Justice, as well
as the novel doctrines ant have been laid down by
the highest law authorities. And to this part of the
subject we shall confine our remarks. In our
of last week we published a short account of
the trial—•" Lewis against Clement"—in which the
Plaintiff, an Attorney, sought to recover damages for
what he was pleased to call a libel, anti which is now
proved to have been a true and correct report of a
proceeding that bad taken place in the Insolvent
Court. We copied that accoent from one of the
London Papers, in all of which it was very loss
perfectly given. Having since been furnished with •
full report of that-Mel, we consider it to be a dote.
meat of such importance, not only to those connect-
ed with the Press, but the Nation at large, that we
feel it nor duty to lay it before the Public. On the
issue of that trial depended, whether a Journalist
could ever spin venture to publish a report of any
proceeding in a Court of Justice, where the improper
conduct of an individual might happen to be impli-
cated. Had the Jury in that case given a verdict,
with heavy damages, against the Defendattt, for
lending forth a statement of what occurred in a Court
of Justice, and which statement was proved in sub-
stance to have been truly and correctly given; had
that Jury acted upon the doctrine of Lord
rough, on•which we shall animadvert in oar sobs.:
quent numbers, Printers and Publishers would, in
future, be intimidated against publishing even a trial at
the Old Bailey ; the City of London would be
obliged to discharge its abort-hand writer, who takes
down the evidence against criminals • and even the
reports, which are constantly looked up to as au-
thorities in Courts of Law, would cease to appear in
their accustomed form. oi, thank God, and thank
to tee sensible. independent, and virtuous Jury of
the county of Heist, a verdict was found for the
Defendant--for the Proprietor of the Observer.

-

KEJvT Jutr 30.
LEWIS V. CLEMENT.

This was an action to recover compensation in
damages, brought by Mr. Lewis, an Attorney, of
Canterbury, against Mr. Clement, the Publisher and
Proprietor of the Observer, a London Weekly News-
paper, fora Libel contained in an article of that Paper,
Nov. 23, purporting to be a Report of the proceed-
ings in the Insolvent Debtors' Court, oa a Mr. Car-
ter's application to be discharged.
Mr. CHITTY having stated the pleadings,
Mr. blaitaYat detailed the case. He had to
complain of a grievous libel—one that had been pub-
lished in a Paper which printed many thousands.—
It went throughent thecountry as well as the metro.
polls ; and it had been particalsrlyvead about the
Plaintiffs neighbourhood. The Plaintiff was an at-
torney transacting business at Canterbury. In the
course of business he became acquainted with Car-
ter, late a carpenter of Ramsgate. Lewis assisted
him in various ways—first, by releasing him from an
arrest for 121., and then by endeavouring to raise
2501. on that individual's property. Money coeld
not be raised, bat Mr. Lewis advanced SEMI to the
amount of 901. to relieve Mr. Carter's immediate
wants. No one wool() advance money. Rowe had
offered to purchase the property for 3001. provided

Of 901. was SIP 1.001 • ..1 ill': • Ott
Thii was refused, Gine. 9iterWilkl7.becalw
tugly .iih two of his creditiii:
slid he would do any thing to keep elm* abut of
their' Money. In i second action; 31r. Leiiii got
bail for' Mtn, but hi determined it 6406 -
in prieoii; and like the bin.Go .of.the ltct There teas,
ho a preiluoi meeting of ibeereilittiri;ihi,h-Mr
Lewis proinised to come iii amongst the test; WO.
Tided he Was piiii the Maney he bad
Tido availed itot, others ciedi.tirs declining iiie pro.
positions !offered. tarter then aka to priion 16
rediain for the Act, lilt gild not till he engaged With
Mr. Lewis to adOsnia Money to ibiititiin bim end
hill family; and in hit trolihles lie bid repiiiitedly es:
presied Me patitede for the hibellts eiperliticed by
Uri I.tiiii. After the idiattreetint pf iereiii !ems;
fish ashiltielt 6f law expencii; Mi. L.'s bill was Vol.
slid a Seetteat- of aitoritey, and mbiolegi of the
pripittly, was giieit,by Cotter fi M fir Mr. Lewis's sect'.
thy; lie knew
oweill whit he signed; I.t. the wiit-
itio *ere email' eto him. After in
prison lift eboothe,.intitead pf thief.; carter, :rented
more ibuiiey still; flirt bU. Le.Ohi Was 01.0iged to ',old
his bane. This reale! disPleeSed. tarter; alp! lie
then tbreatenid.to be made a batiks Opt; to &lee Mr.
Lewis's tikethies; lie time eau.tionPJ
'imerse; bid after this thiiMi; Mr. L. eittii,ed
jriegment ea the duelist of attorney: Eeetuti:)ii
iseeki—but thWetecie Nand Ob'the Prrinieeestnt.uit.:
ltd to 01. Ili. ant ittlieletit to pet the
'Thai Mr..l.essie tilt Ito liiintfit, yet he vas held opl
Id the world in the Report, as One lhit: hid Com-
bined With Carter to defeat • his cleditoii, quit tied
got all the praporty,, and that had believed uitti
pethdy; end. treechetp Such was the
pinion produced by the Iteenit: .

•. s►.

-•-. ,Il

, .
The libel was evidentlY prenieditated ; of iil~
mime it was unjust to publish such ralumnies4
even if the Repast were correct; Lewis nut heist;
present to vindicate himself. Tbe,oloei tie psi.
&ugly to defame Mr. Lessiti, iis..nnitetng nobody
else hardly, and being headed;" fititioneful conduct
of an Attotitey." 'llse Report,ohich ma, a column
awl a half io lruslh, psnceeded to slescri',e the up:
pllcalion of C, yet. as one possessioe • isnot •std
gustiest, ettcePcl•ng 500 i. in value, Ifs ion /twitted oti
the groond.oi Wasteful use -1 profits its prefertio4
Writs of Etror, Bic. of fhiptsilesalt preferring the
claims of Mr. Loss of It. mseate 0341.terhory was
meant). The Counsel (.bir. Kiss. t.) ass &stinted
as billing 04icli. that Carter had 11.4 (hope gdilty .of
fraud, on the coutrsili that " lie and his family
had beets restored from a state of reipecishility by
the baseness of his attort.sy, to a .tate of ositit,.dis.
ease, end imprisonment." Ile (Ai; M.) *staid not
Ibelieve that any Gentleman at the Bar Would have
used such language. The libel toil/ that the
Insolvent applied to Mr. Lewis to arrange with his
creditors, is his property would pay 10.. in the
pound—that he signed instruments he knee not Oat
for Mr. Lewis—that Lewis had not only got a mort-
gage, but had seized on all Lis household property;
—that be had been ruined entirely by lievitis-=aud
that he was " so greatly ditiressed Suite ISIS con-
finement, that the moment he got his discharge he
must get his admission into an hospital; for he lie 1, olr
two two-penny loaves to subsist on for the Ipso. of
four days, and his wife and children hail been com
pelted to seek refuge in a workhouse, and Carter had
obstinately remained in prison.
Mr. Lewis was then accused of having improperly
got the deeds, &c. hut in conclusion it *us said,
" Mr. Serjeant Runnii.gton deprecated in strong
language the conduct of Mr. 1.. wig, slid suggested
to Mr. Ileath, that in such a fl ,grant case they
ought to apply to the Court of 14it g's Broth; On the
sutject of Lewis's conduct." Lastly, it said; 66 TO
the peat eatisfaction of every one in Court, the poor
old man was discharged." Ile (Mr. M.) would not
believe that the Judge used any such language; and
as to the poor old man, he was aged 46 I This Re.
port was most unfair, and was garbled with observe-
lions;_ and many parts of it were wilfully false.—
Mr. Lewis went to town. He and Mr. Williams(
went to the office, bat could not get the Reporter's
name ; nor would • contradiction be. inserted with-
out paying sit guineas for it. And after that pre.
reeding it only appeared in part of the publication ;
many of that day's publication having appeared with.
out it. This Report contained calumoyi and that
too regarding a person not present ; and he contend-
ed that Papers published such esparte Reports at
their peril. Here were observation', and Noakes r.
Stiles had established that, such an article ceased to be
a report. In a case against the same Paper (Vol.
land's case), Lord Ellenborough lately said, that
the publication of calumny to gratify corioaity-might
Ibe venial, but it vas no justification of the aet.-b-•
here it was not only not a correct Report, bat it
was mired op with extraneous matter sod observe.
don ; and he trusted that the verdict of the Jury
would establish that such Reports were nut the Reg
ports endured by the law.
James Mattison, of the Stamp-officr, was theft
celled. Ile produced the Observer, of November 51,t,
1817, and the Paper of the following Sunday, Nov.
30. They were returned to him to be registered as-
turtling to the Act.
Mr. Burke, from the Stamp-office, produced Mi.
Clement's affidavit, sworn
.before the Commission-
ers, stating, that he was sole Proprietor of the Ob.

server.
The

Ihen read. The leadi

fir - of

libel was th log portions
it bowie(' been detailed in Mr. Marryat's speech, it ie
uoneceseary to repeat it. her.
Richard Petman, of Canterbury, bricklayer, stated
that he knew MC. Lewis. 'leveed the Paper in pub.
lie company, and considered that R alloded to Mr.
Lewis, of Canterbury : be knew no Mr. L. of Items.
gate. There was much coorersatien about the libeti
which he bad read.
Thomas Pierce, of Canterbury, said he knew Mr.
Lewis. lie had read the Report, and considered it
to allude to Mr. L. of Canterbury.
Laurence W.ititams, of Cursitur.street, an Aunts
ney, stated, that Mr. Lewis was articled to him. ffs
bad acted es Mr. L's agent. ,Ile had jearified bait
in 1818, Wood v. Carter, and he afterwards brought
a Writ of Error. lie had not the Papersa—he wee
not Mr. L.'s agent now.
[The Pspers were asked for, but they were not in
Court.]
In September, 1810, after potting in ban in glides
V. Caner, he retatad instraCtioas to prepare t wort.

~..
ATArl'itS'.l,%l - t - t.-4-;.--=., _ _ -.:.-... Id
.._ ... ........._.... -
'RN CIRGUnt ' RE. itIVT A ' to DRSTROY tifs his debt of
LIEU? OF Pas PRESS. money. 'H
r-,. itigil with
Wltllletilowldfroutt toin**ll Nett to the right shich F.oglishmeti iiijiy; el seld he wo

SI. I
• 4"
• V t.!
tr". :14eLbar^ • • 4
.6.24
”0) ...I ori.4 put 4114.6'
be' &mi.;
'is pilitivuisr t eau(
•